Professional Documents
Culture Documents
`
Fame, Money, and Power
THE RI SE OF PEI SI STRATOS AND
DEMOCRATIC TYRANNY
AT ATHENS
B. M. Lavelle
THE UNI VERSI TY OF MI CHI GAN PRESS
ANN ARBOR
`
Copyright by the University of Michigan :oo
All rights reserved
Published in the United States of America by
The University of Michigan Press
Manufactured in the United States of America
Printed on acid-free paper
:oo :oo; :ooo :oo : +
No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, or otherwise, without the written
permission of the publisher.
A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lavelle, Brian M., +,+
Fame, money, and power : the rise of Peisistratos and democratic tyranny at Athens /
B. M. Lavelle.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN o-;:-++:-; (cloth : alk. paper)
+. Pisistratus, oo?: or ; B.C. :. Athens (Greece)HistoryAge of Tyrants,
oo+o B.C. . DictatorsGreeceAthensBiography. I. Title.
DF::.PL :oo
,.o:dc::
:ooooo+
ISBN13 978-0-472-11424-5 (cloth)
ISBN13 978-0-472-02581-7 (electronic)
This book is dedicated to my mother and my father
who gave of themselves, all that they had,
and who taught their children that
a life not led for others is no life at all.
Te amo, te amo.
`
Preface
vii
`
This book is the result of several years study of Peisistratid tyranny at
Athens. It was prompted not by an interest in tyranny as much as by a de-
sire to know more about the genesis of Athenian democracy. In a short
time, it became clear that fth-century controversies about the tyranny
had warped the history of the period, distorting its record by revision,
apology, or silence.Thucydides denes the problem to some extent in his
account of the murder of Hipparchos, the son of the tyrant Peisistratos
(o.,). Popular memory and accounts of the murder and what it
brought about were at variance with what Thucydides believed and pur-
ported to be the facts about it. Differences and distortions are generally
detectable in relation to the historyof the tyranny, and it is clear that the
Athenians who remembered or told themselves or others what they did
about it were not above altering facts to obtain apparently desired results.
The record was further affected by the passage of time under these con-
ditions. Source criticism must be the bedrock for establishing what might
be reliable in the record and so the history of the period. A preliminary
work, The Sorrow and the Pity: A Prolegomenon to a History of Athens under
the Peisistratids (+,,) took up the problem of sources for the tyranny.
The tyrant Peisistratos did not operate or become tyrant in a political
vacuum. Athens was functioning at least semidemocratically as early as
Solons time, and Peisistratos inherited conditions that he could neither
end nor alter fundamentally. The Athenian de
mos to keep it.This was a lesson that Kleisthenes, the author of Athe-
nian democracy but also a high ocial under the tyrants, had learned well
by the end of the sixth century B.C.E. His formulation of Athens democ-
racy was surely inuenced by these conditions.
In fact, the patterns of political behavior of outstanding early demo-
cratic politicians of Athens are not dissimilar to Peisistratos. Military lead-
ership and success led rst to credibility and then to popularity; wealth
gained thereby or to be gotten was passed on in some form to the de
mos;
enrichment, in turn, sustained popularity and so political power. This
symbiotic systemseems to have been in place by Solons time; it appears
to have become entrenched by the early fth century.Democracy, in a
form recognizable in the early fth century B.C.E., was present and work-
ing in Athens before and during the time of the regimes of Peisistratos
and his sons.There was in fact no day/nightbreak between tyranny and
democracy at the time of Kleisthenesreforms.
This book is the result of a study of the rise of Peisistratos amid these
conditions. It is a compilation of material about Peisistratos to Palle
ne
mos: Spliced
Strands of Explanation for the First Tyranny
;. The Herodotean Re-creation of Megakles Role
in the Events ;
B. Reconstruction of Events Leading to Peisistratos First Tyranny ,
C. Peisistratos First Tyranny: Its Nature and Functioning ,o
+. The Early Partnership with Megakles ,o
:. The Akropolis and the Club-Bearers (korune
phoroi ) ,:
. Peisistratos Governance and the End of the First Entente
with Megakles ,o
. Peisistratos Second Tyranny ,
A. Introduction ,
B. Peisistratos and Athena:The Significance of the
Phye Pageant ,,
C. Peisistratos and Megakles Daughter: A Fathers
Righteous Indignation +o;
D. Summary ++:
+. Herodotos and Megakles ++:
:. Peisistratos Second Tyranny ++
IV. The Tide of Wealth and Power
Peisistratos Exile, Return, and Rooting of the Tyranny ++o
+. The Thracian Sojourn ++o
A. Introduction:The Strategy for Return ++o
B. Rhaike
los ++,
+. Location of the Peisistratid Settlement ++,
:. The Settlements Nature and Functions +:o
. Peisistratos Role in the Thermaic Gulf: Oikiste
s, Condottiere,
or Strate
gos? +:+
. Peisistratos Company at Rhaike
los +:
. Summary +:
C. The Strymon Enterprise +:o
+. Introduction: Lures and Deterrents of the Regions
around Pangaion +:o
:. Location of the Peisistratid Settlement +:;
. Peisistratos and the Mines of Pangaion +:,
. The Nature and Purpose of the Peisistradid Settlement on
the Strymon:The Examples of Histiaios and Aristagoras ++
. Summary +
:. The Palle
ne
Campaign +
A. Preliminaries: Eretria +
+. Koisyra and the Eretrian Hippeis +
:. Lygdamis and Deeds before Palle
ne
+o
B. Resources +,
+. The Catalogue of Allies +,
:. Peisistratos Chre
ne
los :::
G. Peisistratos and the Purication of Delos
Actions and Intentions ::
H. Sophokles and Herodotos on the Foundations of Tyranny
Oedipous Tyrannos :+
Notes :;
Bibliography
Index
Illustrations following page +o
xiv cox+rx+s
I
Introduction
`
+. rorrvori
Peisistratos, the son of Hippokrates, and his sons dominated affairs at
Athens from o to +o i.c.r., a period that was obviously a crucial one
in Athens development.Yet we know almost nothing about these impor-
tant years. Most of what we have about the Peisistratids clusters at the be-
ginning of Peisistratos tyrannies and at the end of Hippias rule.This could
be taken to indicate that the establishment and dissolution of the tyranny
were the most distinguishing and memorable events associated with it,
that things might have gone pretty dim in between or otherwise did not
bear recollection in the aftermath of the tyranny.At all events, the period
of Peisistratid tyranny is one of the most opaque in Athens history not
only because of a lack of hard information about it but also because much
of what little does survive is problematic.
1
The implications of the meager evidence about the tyranny are in fact
belied by Athens achievements even immediately after the regimes de-
mise and by the relatively rich material record of the tyranny itself,
particularly that to be found in its architectural, sculptural, and pottery re-
mains.
2
These indicate continuous, impressive progress in art and artistic
technology through the period, an increasing sophistication in culture
among the Athenians more generally, and, it must follow, a prospering
economy.
3
From well before the tyrannys establishment to long after its
demise, Athens art and culture continued to evolve toward their classi-
cal forms of the fth century.This evolution was in fact not only unim-
peded by the tyranny but actually stimulated by it and the widening pros-
`
perity over which the tyrants presided. (There is in fact some corrobora-
tion for this stimulation in the written record, as we shall presently see.)
4
The range of dedications on the Athenian akropolis datable to the later stages
of the tyranny, made apparently by citizens (astoi) spanning the spectrum
of social and economic statuses; grand festivals common to all, established
even before Peisistratos; and, within them, poetic performances available
to the Athenians en masse all imply that many rather than few were par-
ticipant in the citys growing cultural life during the time of the tyrants.
The rened aesthetic sensibilities of the Athenians, which in the fth cen-
tury were realized in a number of remarkable forms, had clearly evolved
through the later sixth century and were actually quite well developed by
the tyrannys end.
5
This burgeoning of Athenian culture accords with what little we know,
especially about the later Peisistratids as notable patrons of architecture
and literature.
6
The scope of Peisistratid era wealth and its employment
by the younger tyrants for the production of art may be gauged to some
extent by the number and size of public and artistic works undertaken
during the period, most notably the temple of Olympian Zeus, and by
their retention at Athens of the foremost Greek poets of the age.
7
Thus,
to the contrary of what the near silence of the historical record between
the beginning and end of the tyranny implies, the Peisistratids were quite
at the forefront of Athens cultural progress and, on the evidence, had
much to do with laying the foundations for that which we call Classi-
calAthens.
So the material remains, but the tyrants must also have gured some-
how in the genesis of Athens democracy, that greatest of Athenian insti-
tutions of the Classical period. The Peisistratid regime and its politics
functioned without apparent disruption for more than three decades, en-
during until just a few years before Kleisthenes promulgated his reforms
in o; i.c.r. Political participation involving the de
se, accounted
for his political free fall after Marathon.
18
These were, of course, the notable friendsand relations of the tyrants
whose political lives prospered until the aftermath of the rst Persian in-
vasion of Attika.There were certainly other, lower-prole, and so presum-
ably lower-level, politicians who had been archontes (elected ocials) or
functionaries of the tyrants (e.g., Harpaktides, Skamandrios, etc.) but who
also seem to have remained in Athens after the tyrannys demise.
19
As it
happens, many of the politically successful gene
ne
ne
. As we shall see,
Herodotos actually supplies the most substantial evidence for believing
the opposite of the typical in the case of Peisistratos: his tyranny was pop-
ular; the Athenian de
mos/de
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
le
seion (+.).
70
Peisistratos righteousness and popularity also
gure in his imagined encounter with the poor husbandman of Hymet-
tos, who, knowing the exactions of the tyrant only too well but not the
tyrant himself, proceeds to criticize him to his face.
71
This is actually
folktale. The Peisistratid sections of the Ath.Pol. possess a nugget here
and there, presumably deriving from the Atthides, and must be sifted care-
fully.
72
(So, too, it seems, must Aineias Taktikos et al.)
73
Beyond these and some odd bits and pieces that emerge in late sources,
there is nothing about the earlier tyrannies of Peisistratos that is not either
derivative, invented, or altogether fanciful. Later sources transmit little that
may be deemed reliable or, for that matter, of any real worth.
74
This may
be due largely to times passage and, with it, the loss of memory about the
tyrants. The suppression or perversion of evidence about Peisistratid
tyranny however undoubtedly contributed to the degradation of the store
of information about them. By necessity, this study must be concerned
with, above all, Herodotos account of Peisistratos rise and so the infor-
mation rendered to him by his Athenian sources of the midfth century.
. xr+noi
How will material obviously affected by such ltration be evaluated?
How are facts to be determined and separated from what is not factual?
My study will employ two primary means of evaluation: categorization
and contextualization. First, facts that are not controversial, that seem rm
and do not entail interested reporting, I shall take to be true and elemen-
tal for any historical reconstruction. These would include, for example,
that there was a tyranny, that Peisistratos was a tyrant, that he did in fact
go north to Thrace, and so on. Information that is less plausible or evi-
dently affected by controversies, for example, how the tyranny came about
and who helped and how, must be taken as less veracious but possibly con-
taining valid data. Finally, facts that are clearly adulterated must be con-
sidered least historically valid. For example, the incident involving Chilon
and Hippokrates, and the pronouncement of Amphilytos the seer before
Palle
ne
mos in them.
Solons testimony about politics in his day helps to clarify political con-
ditions at the time of Peisistratos tyrannies. He says unequivocally that
politics was played out in Athens (not the countryside) among two
groups; that the Athenians met in assembly to hear political speakers and
to vote on issues; and that they were persuaded by public speech.
Herodotos says that two parties preexisted Peisistratos third one and
that the de
gos) of
the Athenians; the war with Megara entailed naval operations. Following
this are testimonia that do not bear the stamp of apology or other inter-
ested treatments, that t the contexts portrayed by the sources themselves
or by such sources as Solon, and that might nd agreement in other
sources: the factualness of these will be assumed but not unquestionably.
For example, Aineias Taktikos seems to describe an amphibious attack on
Nisaia by Peisistratos.That is plausible, but its origination in Eleusis is not:
the logical concomitants of war between Athens and Megara come into
play in relation to this information. Finally, testimonia that obviously bear
the stamp of apology or other interested treatment will be evaluated for
facts they indicate directly, obliquely, or otherwise, but they will not be
assumed to be factual. For example, the ground for the disruption of the
marriage of Megakles daughter to Peisistratos indicates an attempt not
only to dim memory of Megakles political kingmaking of Peisistratos
but also very likely to occlude the memory of a later, more lasting mar-
riage alliance between Alkmeonidai and Peisistratidai.Yet only that which
is quite obviously implausible or completely unhistorical will be held to
be of no value. Of course, the principle that factualness is guaranteed just
because of appearance in Herodotos or other sources will not be observed
in this book.
. irxocr:+i c +.r:xx.
A major thesis of this work is that Peisistratos was a democratic tyrant.
He was elected to the tyranny on the rst two occasions; that he was
allowed to remain tyrant for many years after o and the victory at
Palle
ne
mos was
swayed by public speech from politicians, especially involving promises of
Introduction +
+o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
gain. Solon was one of them. In fact, Solon might be considered the rst
democratic tyrantof Athens for the powers that he wielded, as lawgiver
exceeded those of other traditional oces. As mentioned, Herodotos
arms that the de
ne
mata, along with his allies, are explicitly cited by Herodotos as the
pillarsof Peisistratos ultimate triumph. Fame through war heroism and
victory, together with chre
nis, the apparent marker between what was considered Athenian land
proper and the hinterland in the early sixth century i.c.r., supports by it-
self the belief that the Athenians of the city did not consider Peisistratos
entirely Athenian when he entered into public affairs.
6
Peisistratos Pylian
ancestry may therefore have been emphasized, exaggerated, or entirely
concocted essentially as a rhetorical persuasion, its design intended to
open paths and create possibilities that might otherwise not exist for the
only marginally Athenian Peisistratos. A stated link with the Pylians may
even have been requisite for Peisistratos to aspire to power in the rst
place, a kind of credential of anity and worthiness for leadership, the as-
sertion of which must precede any bid for that leadership.
Peisistratos was by no means alone among the Athenians in laying claim
to descent from Neleus, a fact that conrms that such associations were
advantageous if not requisite for political inclusion and advancement.
7
The myths themselves specify why ambitious Athenians vying for lead-
ership would assert such anity. The stories of Melanthos and Kodros
focus on heroes and their heroic leadership in crisis and the salvation of
the city assured by that leadership; the myths are also about the right to
govern Athens, a right won but also rightly conceded by the Athenians.
The Neleid myths could thus be politically protable for aspirants to
power, for by implication descendants of the Neleids would seem just as
effective in leadingand so just as worthy of governingas their fore-
bears had been.
8
A claim to Neleid ancestry was particularly helpful to
Peisistratos the outsider, for, though the Pylians of the myths had come
new to Athens, they had proven themselves by their deeds. The Atheni-
ans undoubtedly entertained and perhaps even encouraged, if they did
not actually expect, such assertions of pedigree, since Melanthos and
Kodros were model rulers whose chief benet to their subjects was the
security they had bestowed upon the city: reincarnations of these would
obviously be most welcome in insecure times. Neleid propaganda, the
rekindled memory of the benets they brought, and the implication of
what their descendants could also bring about must have been particu-
larly potent, especially during the long, drawn out, and bitter war with
Athens neighbor Megara.
B. Mycenaeans in Eastern Attika
Does the claim that the Peisistratids were descended from immigrants
from Pylos hold any truth? Herodotos notice of the Neleid-Peisistratid
The Path to Fame +,
connection does nothing to substantiate it, nor, for that matter, does it
imply of itself that the Athenians accepted it. For his part, Herodotos (or
his source) could have introduced the tradition into the report about
the Peisistratids merely as an aetiological prop for rationalizing the
tyranny. Blood ties to mythic Athenian monarchs helped logically to ex-
plain to Herodotos fth-century audience why the Peisistratids came to
be tyrants.
9
In view of such circumstances, it might be argued that the
Peisistratid tradition of Neleid descent was invented by Herodotos or
his sources and so possessed no real substance or validity.
10
If, however, the Neleid-Peisistratid connection is weighed in light of
the mythic tradition of late Bronze Age immigration to eastern Attika
and, more substantially, of the archaeological record of the region, which
tends to support that tradition, there is in fact a reasonable possibility that
the Peisistratidai and perhaps other inhabitants of eastern Attika around
Philadai had actually descended from Mycenaeans or, at least, from
fugitives from the Mycenaean Peloponnesos, who fetched up in the re-
gion near the end of the Bronze Age.
11
The presence of the latter in the
neighborhood of Brauron and Philadai through the early eleventh cen-
tury i.c.r. is conrmed by material remains there.Although the fugitives
cannot be readily identied as either Pylian or Neleid from those re-
mains and no Pylians are specied in the migration myth, the evidence
of late Bronze Age habitation of the region is secure and could be taken
to support the Peisistratid claim to Mycenaean forebears.
12
According
to myth, the migration to Brauron was Salaminian led, but the Athenians
seem to have been able to accept that the Pylians were in the initial group
of fugitives, arrived later, or at least were somehow involved.
13
The Athe-
nians could allow for such inconsistencies, choosing to believe what they
wanted about the myth and the regions connections. Such allowance is
certainly in line with the way the Athenians treated other parts of even
their much less remote history.
14
Philadai, the deme (village, town, township) of the Peisistratidai, was
situated very near the ancient temenos (precinct) of Artemis at Brauron
on the east coast of Attika (cf. gs. + and :).
15
According to Athenian
myth, the deme was named for the son of Salaminian Aias, who was said
to have settled in eastern Attika after leaving that island in the generation
after that of the Trojan War.This period,Thucydides says, was one of gen-
eral turmoil and stasis in Greece leading to mass migrations; the cession
of Philaios and Eurysakes of the island to Athens and the movement of
the former to Brauron ts this context.
16
Philaios became the eponymous
:o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
of the Philaid genos, the members of which apparently dwelt in the same
deme as the Peisistratids.
17
Around the temenos of Artemis at Brauron, very near Philadai, are ves-
tiges of Mycenaean habitation and graves which include objects of Late
Helladic IIIB (ca. +o++,o i.c.r.) date.
18
It is near Perati, a few kilo-
meters south along the coast from Brauron, however, that there is an ex-
tensive late Mycenaean cemetery, whose contents indicate that a sizable
number of Mycenaeans immigrated hastily and settled in the vicinity,
remaining until some time during the Submycenaean period (ca.
++:+oo i.c.r.), when the cemetery went out of use.
19
The fact that
there was considerable settlement of late Mycenaeans very proximate to
Philadai ca. +oo i.c.r. further supports (but obviously does not prove)
the claim of the Peisistratids to Pylian (i.e., Mycenaean) ancestry.
20
Although the Perati necropolis was nally abandoned and perceptible
Mycenaean cultural indications vanish in the area by the mid- to late
eleventh century i.c.r., the persistence of the cult of Artemis at Brauron
points to continuous settlement proximate to the precinct through the
Dark Ages. While there are material indications of cult activity at the
shrine of Artemis no later than the tenth century i.c.r., that is, perhaps
within a century of the abandonment of the Perati cemetery, it is the cult
itself that bears testimony to continuous habitation around it.
21
Some of
the cults more primitive features (e.g., bear dancing) should be dated no
later than the Neolithic period and their survival points to an unbroken
line of local worshipers through to the Classical period.
22
To have sur-
vived, these cult features must have been passed down through the late
Bronze Age people of the area and their descendants, who and whose
progeny, however few or many they were, became the cults indispens-
able intermediary transmitters.
23
Direct involvement of Mycenaeans in the cult of Artemis of Brauron
is signaled by their physical presence on the site in LH IIIB. It is less di-
rectly indicated by its special ties to the hero Agamemnon, the most pow-
erful of all Mycenaean kings for later Greeks. At Brauron, the so-called
tomb of Iphigeneia, where Agamemnons daughter was said by Euripides
to have been interred, hints at a religious (and political?) association of
Mycenaeans with the Artemis cult during the late Bronze Age.
24
Although
perceptible Mycenaean cultural traces vanish in the region by ca. +o:
i.c.r., survival of Artemis worship at Brauron, with its Neolithic aspects
and the memory of Iphigeneia, is explained by the persistence of worship
and so habitation of Bronze Age Greeks (i.e., Mycenaeans). Material re-
The Path to Fame :+
mains from the tenth century in the vicinity of the temenos point to the
conclusion that the cult was maintained through the late Bronze and Sub-
mycenaean periods by worshipers who dwelled near Brauron.
Philadai was the closest deme site to the Artemis temenos at Brauron:
in fact, in the deme arrangement of Kleisthenes, Brauron was subsumed
within Philadai.There can be little doubt that the inhabitants of Phila-
dai were implicated in the worship of Brauronian Artemis, whose
temenos was mere hundreds of meters from the deme site.This implica-
tion is demonstrated in the scholion to Ar. Aves ;:The Myrrhinousians
name Artemis Kolainis, just as the people of the Peiraios [call her]
Mounichia, and the people of Philadai [call her] Brauronia.
25
This tes-
timony not only implies the close physical proximity of Philadai to Brau-
ron but also that the cult was controlled by Philadai. If transmission of
the cult from the Bronze Age depended on continuous cult involvement,
then it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the land adjacent to
Brauron possessed inhabitants without substantial interruption from the
late Bronze Age.The obvious candidates for such cult involvement are the
inhabitants of Philadai and its environs.The Athenian memory of Myce-
naeans settling in eastern Attika and at Brauron and of Braurons proxim-
ity to Philadai would have supported the claims of the inhabitants of
Philadai to Mycenaean ancestry.
On appearances, the Peisistratidai, who dwelled initially at Philadai,
were themselves specially implicated with the cult of Artemis Brauronia.
Introduction of it to Athens is attributed to them, which, if true, suggests
at the very least a particular interest in and patronage of it, since at the
time of the introduction the cult had really only local signicance and
could produce no political dividends immediately at Athens.
26
Indeed,
the Peisistratids interest in the cult must have derived from its regional
rather than its national signicance at the time of its introduction to
Athens. Presumably the Peisistratids hoped that it would take root among
the Athenians. In fact, it did. From this special interest, it is tempting to
assume a hereditary Peisistratid cult link to Brauronian Artemis, but that
is to go too far. This association with the cult of Brauronian Artemis,
whatever it may have been, does not answer the question of Mycenaean
ancestry, since the Peisistratids could have been relative latecomers to the
region.
It certainly possible that the Peisistratidai, like other Athenian gene
,
such as the Gephyraioi, moved to eastern Attika as immigrants, perhaps
from Euboia, and settled in among the indigenes of the area sometime
:: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
during the Geometric or Archaic periods.
27
If that were so, the Peisis-
tratids had even greater incentive to adopt the kind of myth that would
mute or occlude their actual foreignness by emphasizing their kinship. It
is to be noted, however, that, while several ancient sources allude to a
Neleid background for the Peisistratids, no source makes them late im-
migrants to Attika, as, for example, Herodotos does the Gephyraioi. Such
foreignness, one imagines, would certainly have surfaced somewhere and
been made to stick to the Peisistratidai if they were in fact strangers
(xenoi), especially by Herodotos, who notes other gene
coming late to
Athens. It is to be further noted that no ancient source overtly rejects or
denies either the standard Athenian version of the Neleid myths or the
Peisistratid claim to Neleid origins.
28
Yet that silence neither proves nor
disproves the validity of the myths or the claim. Although it is possible
that Peisistratids were actually descended from the Mycenaean immi-
grants to eastern Attika, the question will not be settled on the present
evidence. That question is, in any case, overshadowed by our desire to
comprehend the meaning of the Pylian link to the Athenians and to as-
sess its political value for Peisistratos.
29
C. Political Advantages of the Neleid Myths
A closer look at the Pylian myths reveals specic advantages for Peisis-
tratos and suggests Peisistratos more precise aims in advancing his claims
to Pylian ancestry.
30
According to the myths, when Melanthos came to
Athens from Pylos, Attika was under attack by Boiotians. Their king,
Xanthos, proposed to settle things by single combat.Thymoetes of Athens,
the last descendant of Theseus, offered to hand over his domain to any-
one who would ght Xanthos. In so doing, he showed himself to be both
cowardly and ineffectual and so no longer t to rule.Although newly ar-
rived from Pylos, Melanthos, the son of Neleus, took up the challenge
and defeated and killed Xanthos. In so doing, he ended the invasion and
saved Athens. The Athenians concluded that Melanthos was much the
better man for the job than Thymoetes and so armed him as king.The
last Theseid was thus replaced by the immigrant Neleid, who had simul-
taneously displayed courage, leadership, prowess in battle, and above all
effectiveness. Because of these qualities, which he had translated into vic-
tory, and what they augured for the future, Melanthos was invested with
the monarchy. He had demonstrated by taking up the challenge and then
through combat that he was the best man for the job.
The Path to Fame :
It is to be noted that Melanthos did not acquire the throne of Athens
by taking it forcibly, through subterfuge, usurpation, or otherwise illegit-
imately or even obliquely. Rather he became basileus by the consent of
the Athenians after demonstrating heroic and kingly capacities. Melan-
thos arrival during a crisis provided him an opportune moment, and he
seized it.
31
His son, Kodros, conrmed Neleid nobility and aptitude for
rule when, learning by prophecy that Athens would be saved if its king
were killed, he sacriced himself and preserved the city from destruction
once again, this time at the hands of the Dorians of Megara.
32
His
younger son, Neleus, the namesake of the dynastys founder, subsequently
led a successful emigration to Miletos, further demonstrating the genos
capacity for effective leadership in crisis.
33
The Neleid myths were surely not inventions of the later seventh cen-
tury i.c.r., as some have argued, but part of Athens preservation mythol-
ogy set in and most probably datable to around the Late Bronze Age.
34
It
was the kind of myth that was spawned during or after the dicult times
of threat and real insecurity, when the author(s) and the beneciaries of
the myth were still very anxious about their survival. The Pylians were
saviors of Athens, ideal leaders at any time but desperately needed during
times of invasion and threat to the polis. Presumably, the Athenians be-
lieved that descendants of the Neleids were capable of similar deeds
because they possessed the blood of their ancestors and so similar traits
and possibilities.The Athenians regard for such blood ties and the char-
acteristics that they imagined descended from the original Neleids and
would be evinced in their progeny will have encouraged the several
Athenian claims of anity to Neleids, especially from the later seventh
century i.c.r. The people of Athens will have been apprehensive of
invasion because of the Megarian war, especially after the Kylonian de-
bacle and the Megarian occupation of the akropolis. The Megarian war
did not spawn the Neleid myths: they had no authority or strength if
merely concocted. Rather, the war and the late invasion of the Megarians
provided a very good context for them and invited their republication.
A Neleid ancestry accepted by the Athenians of the city would have
beneted Peisistratos immensely, especially because the myths argued ad-
vantageously for the benets brought by newcomers who would be lead-
ers.
35
Since Peisistratos came from Athens hinterland, the Neleid tie made
a case not only for ancient anity to the Athenians but also for heroic
age nobility, military potential, and, most importantly, very effective lead-
ership.What more opportune time for Peisistratos to put forth such claims
: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
than after demonstrating great deeds and before aspiring to the
strate
gia? The seizure of the akropolis by Kylon and his Megarian allies
realized the unthinkable: it was what the Athenians appeared to have in-
veterately dreaded but what, according to their preservation mythology
(and the archaeological record), others had never accomplished.
36
How
better could Peisistratos exploit the insecurities of the Athenians, still
mired in a bitter war with Megara, than by referring their thoughts em-
phatically to an equally uncertain moment in the citys past, which was
resolved by another newcomer who just happened to be Peisistratos an-
cestor? (That explicit ties were made by the Peisistratids to Melanthos and
Kodros is, of course, suggested by Herodotos testimony.) As the Neleid
bloodlines were his, so was their promise also his.The myths of the Neleid
Melanthos and Kodros were contextualized in crisis and resolution of
crisis. Peisistratos claim to Neleid ancestry, which of course recollected
the ancient crisis and its successful outcome, was obviously most effec-
tively rst employed by him around the time of his bid for leadership in
the Megarian conict, that is, before the establishment of his rst
tyranny.
37
(As we shall see, there is other evidence suggesting further
myth-manipulation attributable to Peisistratos at the time of the Megar-
ian war [see section .E].)
If the Neleid link were invoked again as part of Peisistratos campaign
for the tyranny, it was perhaps differently emphasized.As part of a rhetor-
ical effort to persuade the Athenians to grant power to Peisistratos, the
myths implications were best deployed as arguments for aisymne
teia (elec-
tive monarchy). Herodotos informs us that such an election occurred
when the Athenians handed to Peisistratos by vote the means to seize the
tyranny, recollecting the great deeds he had done during the Megarian
war (+.,.). Monarchy was appropriate for Peisistratos because it was
spear won, just as it had been for Melanthos. A further implication of
the myth, however, was that, although the threat of foreign invasion may
have abated, Athens further security and well-being devolved upon the
hero who had resolved the crisis, just as it had upon Melanthos. Similarly,
just as Melanthos had assumed the kingship and kept Athens safe, peace-
ful, and presumably prosperous, so should Peisistratos be accepted as
basileus for similar reasons.
38
The Neleid myths worked in other ways for Peisistratos.They not only
featured the lone capable outsider who, after effecting Athens relief, could
lead it to greater things but also, by contrast, reected upon the late in-
effectiveness of other city leadersthe contemporary reections of
The Path to Fame :
Thymoeteswho could not, would not, but, in any case, did not solve
the crisis of the war and who thus disqualied themselves from leader-
ship. By implication, these included the city aristocrats, some of them also
claiming to be Neleidai, who were, every one of them, shown up by their
inaction or failure to live up to the implications of their alleged blood-
lines. In the absence of such effectiveness, any invoking of a Neleid link
for these would have been quite counterproductive politically. It was ob-
viously wrong, the myths implied, for the Athenians to continue to fol-
low the ineffectual, just as it would have been in the time of Thymoetes,
himself a descendant of the great Theseus. Thus, the Neleid link would
have worked very well for Peisistratos campaigning for leadership after
Nisaia, as it did before the victory there.
That Peisistratos would have resorted to such persuasion to urge a
tyranny is suggested by Herodotos account of Peisistratos rise to power
in conjunction with other information about political conditions in
Athens at the time, especially that offered by Solon. Herodotos shows that
Peisistratos required the consent of the de
gia. A
record of service and success was a prerequisite for high command, com-
mand for Nisaia, and Nisaia for the tyranny. Publicizing the Neleid link
reminded the Athenians of his kinship and what it portended, but the
dividends from that had to be predicated rst upon command capability
and then on military success.
Whether Peisistratos was embarked on a path to attain the tyranny from
before the time he arrived at Athens, before he was invested with the gen-
eralship, or even before Nisaia is not possible to say. Yet something must
The Path to Fame :,
account for his coming to Athens and becoming involved in its affairs. It
may be that, regarding the Megarian war, the Athenians failures, and his
own abilities, Peisistratos arrived in Athens with xed ideas of monarchy.
However that may be, success in war was essential to his advancement and
Peisistratos cannot reasonably have foreseen his real chances for tyranny
before his victories, signicant victories at that, were won.
Nisaia was the watershed in Peisistratos earlier career and propelled
him forward to seek the tyranny. It was the necessary ingredient for cap-
italizing on the Pylian link. From outsider to aspirant to tyranny because
of his deeds, the parallels of myth and his career were apparently lost on
neither him nor the Athenians.The nal triumph over the Megarians en-
sured Athens security, especially with regard to Phaleron, and made Pei-
sistratos popular among the Athenians. It was the real linchpin for any
plans for tyranny: in fact, it paved the way to it. So signicant was Nisaia
that without it there very likely would not have been a Peisistratos to hear
of, for he would have become just another failed, anonymous Athenian
leader in the war and would have thus lacked the basis of popularity
needed for obtaining and holding onto a monarchy. The consent of the
de
r-
ouchs) were established on the island, and Kleisthenes did not include it
fully in his reforms.
65
Though held to be Athenian by the Athenians,
Salamis was apparently considered a territory or an appanage rather than
a true portion of the oldest land of Ionia.Talk about original Athenian
ownership of Salamis was just that. (Spartan arbitration [Plut. Sol. +o],
which apparently came about later, merely conrmed what that Athen-
ian victory at Nisaia had achieved: cf. section .E.)
Although, for their part, the Megarians must have coveted Eleusis and
Salamis from of old, their desires will have been stimulated by events occur-
ring during the eighth century i.c.r., especially those involving its neigh-
bor Corinth. It has been estimated that, by the third quarter of the eighth
century, up to two-fths of the southern Megarid had been lost to the
encroachments of the Corinthians. If that is true, it was catastrophic.
66
Corinths annexation must be attributed to an expansiveness spurred on
at least partially by Corinths need for land, since the citys intensive col-
onizing effort began around the middle of the eighth century.
67
Megara
had been dominated by Corinth in the earlier Dark Ages, and, although
Orsippos, a general of the Megarians in the late eighth or very early sev-
enth century i.c.r., had managed to wrest back some of the land cut off
by neighborsone imagines the Corinthians
68
Megara could be no
match over the longer run for Corinth, whose resources far outstripped
Megaras. There was therefore little hope that Megara could regain the
land lost in the southwestern quarter of the Megarid;
69
Megara had to
look elsewhere for expansion.
70
It was probably from the late eighth century that Eleusis and the Thri-
asian Plain became increasingly alluring. In addition to pressure from
Corinth, Megara, too, seems to have had to deal with its own population,
as its own colonialism suggests. According to the ancient evidence,
Megarian colonies were established at Khalkedon, Selymbria, and Byzan-
tion between ca. o and ca. o i.c.r.
71
The foundation of these, all
within the span of about a generation, implies that Megara had rather a
sudden need to colonize the lands toward the Euxine. Obviously, Megara
could afford to send Megarians in numbers substantial enough to control
and exploit their constellation of colonies in the Propontian region and
all within about three decades.
72
Its colonies established, Megara had now ample reasons to covet both
Eleusis and Salamis and so for engaging in war with Athens over them.
The need for security of communication with Megaras new colonies as
well as the prospect of land for Megarians surely increased the desire to
The Path to Fame
occupy Salamis.
73
The Megarid itself appears to have been prey to inces-
sant piracy from Salamis in any case, possibly beginning in the Bronze Age,
and such attacks will have risen to greater frequency in proportion to the
ship trac to and from Nisaia.
74
In addition to the strategic advantages
Eleusis and Salamis could offer Megara in the Saronic Gulf, both could
also supply land for settlers and so help to relieve population pressure closer
to home.
75
Necessity fanned desire, and it is a safe bet that if the long,
drawn-out war between Athens and Megara had not begun before it was
surely under way no later than the midseventh century i.c.r.
76
The appearance of Theagenes, tyrant of Megara, around midcentury
must be viewed against this backdrop: in fact, we may venture that
Theagenes and his tyranny were products of crisis conditions, the preem-
inent of which was the war.We have nothing really explicit of Theagenes
background except that according to Aristotle he slaughtered the ocks
of the rich and became popular as a result. Later, because of his popular-
ity, Theagenes asked for and obtained a bodyguard from the Megarians
and so became Megaras tyrant.
77
References to Theagenes and his career
derive from fourth-century sources and come under some suspicion for
that. Indeed, they liken Theagenes and his rise both to Peisistratos of
Athens and Dionysios I of Syrakuse.
Aristotle is a credible source, however, and there are really no good
grounds for rejecting his testimonies.
78
Indeed, the rise of all three tyrants
could have followed similar lines, causing them to be so grouped by Aris-
totle.Theagenes slaughter of the ocks of the rich, a dramatic gesture in
an age of political extravagance by tyrants or would-be tyrants, was a po-
litical statement to be sure, one designed undoubtedly to help him gain
popularity with the needier among the Megarians. But that design may
have dovetailed with a more practical end. His gesture was also intended
to show that Theagenes was capable of taking measures to deal with
Megaras problems, one of which apparently was the lands inability to
feed a population that for some time seems to have outstripped its re-
sources. Cattle were a resource after all, and by slaughtering them
Theagenes may have nationalized them to bestow upon the needy. In
that light, if we take Theagenes slaughter as a persuasion of the de
mos,
which in Athens, Solon assures us, comprised the have-nots, Theagenes
request for a bodyguard may be understood as leading to a referendum
on the tyranny, just as it did in the cases of Peisistratos and Dionysios.
79
Aristotle supplies yet other important information about Theagenes,
which has been inadequately appreciated. He categorizes Theagenes and
r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
the other two tyrants as polemikoiv , that is, warlike.
80
The catego-
rization identies Theagenes as a war leader and, coupled with the fact of
his tyranny, implies that he had gained some measure of success in war.
This makes great sense in the context of Megarian history for the
midseventh century i.c.r., since, as we have seen, Megara was pressed
on at least two sides by hostile neighbors. As Peisistratos had rst won a
victory over Megara and then achieved some popularity before he at-
tained the tyranny, so is it reasonable to imagine that Theagenes did the
same, earning popularity for distinguishing himself in war, most probably
against the Athenians.Whatever he did as a prelude to his tyranny had to
have been impressive for the Megarians, just as it had been for Peisistratos.
While memorable in other ways, the slaughter of the ocks of the rich
was not the recommendation for the tyranny that victory in war was, and
of course Aristotle based his designation of Theagenes as warlike on
something more than fancy.
81
On the evidence, Theagenes, like Peisis-
tratos, came to power because of his war record and the popularity that
it generated.
The primary problems confronting Megara in the midseventh cen-
tury were land crisis, border insecurity, piratical threats from Salamis per-
haps, and maintenance of communication and commerce with colonies
in the Propontis. Salamis was key to solving many of these problems, and
it is possible that Theagenes led the Megarians to a victory over the Athe-
nians there, perhaps establishing partial or temporary Megarian control
over the island.
82
Salamis could then have become, in turn, a base from
which Megarians could launch attacks on Athens own port of Phaleron.
83
Salamis taken entirely, the Megarians were in the best position to take and
hold Eleusis, since Eleusis could be cut off from Athens by forces putting
out from Salamis. If Eleusis was captured the Thriasian Plain, would also
become Megarian.
84
Salamis fell to the Megarians, we know, sometime
in the seventh century, well before Solon roused the Athenians to take
the island back, and its capture will have been every bit as impressive to
the Megarians then as its recapture by the Athenians was to them later.
Such a victory over the Athenians would have done much to earn
Theagenes the assent of the Megarians to a tyranny.
There is of course no explicit evidence for such a victory by
Theagenes, but we do know that he was warlikeand was certainly hos-
tile to Athens later. Indeed, it was he who dispatched warriors to back
Kylons attempt to establish his own tyranny at Athens. Along with Ky-
lons partisans, these were to coerce the Athenians into accepting Kylons
The Path to Fame
ruleand, presumably Megarian domination of the disputed territories.
The Kylonian coup was in fact a high-water mark of the Megarian war
effort against Athens. Since it was Theagenes who supplied the real
muscle for Kylons attempt, and so made it viable, the coup must have
been undertaken primarily to secure Megaras war aims. Indeed, Kylon
had no real political basis among the Athenians, as we shall see. He was
dependent on Theagenes and so should be viewed as the latters political
creature.
85
At all events, whatever Theagenes did as a prelude to his own tyranny,
it occurred well before Kylons attempted coup, perhaps in the mid-oos.
Theagenes tyranny will have commenced not long after a notable
victory. Literary sources imply that the Megarians and Athenians were
at war from sometime before Kylons coup, that is, ca. oo i.c.r., to
the Athenian victory at Nisaia ca. o i.c.r. Theagenes is to be associ-
ated with the phase of Megarian success in the third quarter of the
seventh century.
:. +nr k.ioxi :x rri soir, i +s rrsui+s, :xi
+nri r si txi ri c:xcr ror +nr xrt:ri :x v:r
It is opportune here to introduce into discussion the attempted tyranny
of Kylon of Athens, which can be viewed apart neither from the Megar-
ian war nor from the context of Peisistratos entrance into Athenian af-
fairs.
86
Our sources tell us that Kylon was of the ancient Athenian no-
bility and an Olympic victor in the diaulos (double race) of oo i.c.r.
87
Seeking to parlay his prestige, both old and newly won, into a monarchy,
Kylon set his sights on the tyranny and made his attempt at tyranny
either in oo or o: i.c.r.
88
Before his attempt, Kylon married a daugh-
ter of Theagenes, undoubtedly with a view toward obtaining the Megar-
ians further support in his enterprise. In fact, it may well have been the
other way around. In any case, Kylons father-in-law supplied him with a
force of Megarian hoplites.
89
With these and other adherents, Kylon
seized the akropolis while the Athenians were outside the city, keeping
the rural festival of Zeus Meilichios.
90
When the Athenians learned what
had happened, they rushed back into the city altogether (pande
mei) and
laid siege to the akropolis, their emotions whipped up in the meantime
by their own outrage and horror and Kylons specic enemies.
91
After
some time had passed with no quick end to the siege in view, most of the
Athenians grew tired of it and turned the conduct of affairs over to the
o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
archons, that is, the Alkmeonidai, then politically ascendant in the city.
92
Soon after, the Kylonian position became untenable and a bargain was
struck. Kylon, his brother, and apparently the Megarians were allowed to
depart unharmed; the hapless remainder on the akropolis were abandoned
to its fates.
93
As it is reported, the Alkmeonidai promised fair treatment to those
who were left behind by the would-be tyrant and who were now sorely
pressed by their own lack of food and water. The besieged accepted the
terms offered and were to descend from their positions on the akropolis
to undergo due process.To hedge their bets, however, the Kylonians se-
cured a tether of suppliant branches to Athenas altar there and clung to
it as they came down. Strained or cut, the tether broke.The Alkmeonidai
are said to have declared that the break was a sign that the goddess had
forsaken the now helpless Kylonians, whom they began to stone. Some
of these then took refuge at the altars of the Dread Goddesses (Semnai
Theai) and were either dragged from them and killed or possibly were
killed on or very near the altars.
94
The slaughter of the Kylonians by the
Alkmeonidai replaced one evil with a greater one in the eyes of the Athe-
nians: the murderers became the objects of apparently far more loathing
for their sacrilege than the Kylonians had for their seizure of the akropo-
lis.
95
Some time after the slaughter, the Alkmeonidai were convicted of
slaughter (sphage
); those who were guilty and still living were exiled and
the dead were exhumed and their bones cast beyond the borders of
Attika. So ended the Kylonian affair. Its reverberations, however, went on
for many years.
Kylons attempt to seize and hold the akropolis when the Athenians
were, most of them, away from the city was deliberate and hostile. The
seizure had obviously been worked out in advance with Theagenes, all of
course without the majority of the Athenians involved and obviously to
their detriment. Kylon and Theagenes agreed upon the timing of the
seizure, the size of the Megarian contingent and, of course, the quid pro
quo, what Theagenes was to get for his assistance, certainly well before
Kylon made his attempt. As to the timing of the seizure, Kylon is said to
have sent to the oracle at Delphi and asked when he should seize the
akropolis.The oracle replied that he should do so during the great festi-
val of Zeus, which, according to Thucydides, Kylon took to mean the
Olympic festival. The actual attempt occurred during the Diasia, when,
Thucydides says, the entire populace was outside of the city.The recon-
structed thoughts of Kylon, his misinterpretation of the oracle and sense
The Path to Fame ;
that the Olympic festival was appropriate for him, an Olympic victor, all
signify reconstruction and are to be regarded as such. In fact, that Diasia
occurred in the spring and was celebrated by the entire populace outside
the city; the Olympic festival occurred in August or early September, and
there would be no general absence of Athenians guaranteed then. Clearly,
Theagenes and Kylon had calculated that the task would be much easier
and Kylons chances for achieving his aims far better if most of the Athe-
nians were outside the city and if he presented them with a fait accom-
pli upon their return.There was no mistake made about the timing.
96
Kylons stealth indicates that he had some sense that the Athenians re-
action would be adverse if he presented himself in any different way to
them. He had utilized a moment of weakness, seizing the akropolis itself,
and ensconcing himself in its near (if only temporary) impregnability; he
confronted the Athenians, on their return from the countryside, with the
reality of his occupation of that formidable rock in force; and he could af-
ford some time to wait out the Athenians. Presumably, Kylon and
Theagenes had reckoned that any resistance, if it came at all, would be
short-lived. Perhaps Kylon thought that his standing and prestige as
Olympic victor would speak for him and win over the Athenians at length.
Whether these were among his thoughts and his calculations, Kylon
was only partially successful. Most of the Athenians did tire of the siege
after a short time and went back about their business.What Kylon failed
to reckon on, however, was the resolute opposition of a core led by the
Alkmeonidai, who had rallied popular opinion against him and his fol-
lowers initially, who remained steadfast in their opposition to his rule, and
who refused to call off the siege.Their dogged opposition to Kylon may
have decided the minds of the many or, perhaps more likely, simply in-
terfered with Kylons plan to wait for consent from the majority, who may
have acquiesced to Kylons tyranny over the longer run. Of course, it is
no surprise that those who were most opposed to Kylon were the very
ones who must relinquish power should he succeed.
Kylons fundamental mistake, it appears, was to attempt to impose a
tyranny dispensing with any process involving persuasion or the consent
of the Athenians but including a hostile alien force occupying the polis.
In short, Kylon did nothing to convince the Athenians of the rightness of
his rule, and, in view of the fact that there are no signs whatsoever of his
popularity among the Athenians, this was his biggest mistake. Unlike Pei-
sistratos at Athens or even Theagenes at Megara, Kylon had no impressive
record of great deeds: his recommendations were his Olympic victory
r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
and his aristocratic standing.There is nothing about heroism, leadership,
or patriotism in the great patriotic war. Thus, Kylon had not garnered
and could not garner the crucial popular support he needed both to at-
tain and then maintain power. He stood no chance of reigning once the
Alkmeonidai sat down around the akropolis.
The presence of the Megarians surely set the nal seal on the attempt,
literally alienating Kylon from any constituency that might have remained
to him.
97
The Megarians were, after all, the Athenians inveterate enemies,
Dorians, whose presence polluted the akropolis.The Athenians must have
felt the Megarian occupation of the akropolis to be intolerable; presum-
ably, they deemed Kylon a traitor for introducing them into the city and
onto the sacred citadel.
98
Although reaction was almost surely enamed
by the rhetoric of Kylons opponents, the fact of the occupation by a
Megarian force, an unprecedented military disaster to be sure but a ter-
rible psychological one to boot, surely accounts for the immediate, vehe-
ment popular opposition. Preservation myth taught the Athenians that
such occupation had never happened: Kylon presented them with the un-
thinkable. For, while foreigners continued to occupy the akropolis,
Athens was essentially obliterated.
99
Megaras prots from the establishment of Kylons tyranny are not di-
cult to comprehend. Simply put, Kylon would rule Athens in Megaras
favor.
100
It may be that the Megarians with him were envisioned as a force
of occupation, as the Spartans and others became much later, possibly to
be reinforced or replaced by others over time.
101
Perhaps these warriors
were the vanguard of Megarians who would actually settle among the
Athenians as Kylons (or Theagenes?) minions. Of course such a design,
coupled with an unpopular tyranny, would have no hope for any
longevity, even as the lifespans of the Spartan-backed regimes later were
very short-lived. In any event, once tyrant, Kylon would presumably do
little to interfere with Megaras further designs upon Eleusis and Salamis,
allowing these either to fall completely to or remain under Megarian
control.
102
He would certainly not advocate Athenian action against his
father-in-law, and of course his successor would be the grandson of
Theagenes.
103
Megara stood to gain much by Kylons accession, and
Theagenes, in making the marriage alliance, must have calculated at least
some of these results before he backed Kylons bid for power. Really, what
could he lose? If Kylon failed, Megara and its interests would not be
greatly affected.
104
In fact, though Kylon failed, because of the upshots
of the Kylonian affair, Megara appears to have proted from it.
The Path to Fame ,
Athens, on the other hand, emerged from the affair demoralized, riven,
and nally leaderless in the war. The capture of the akropolis not only
overturned the security of the preservation mythology, Athens ideology
about the polis inviolability, and so deeply injured the Athenians psychol-
ogy, but it also revealed Athens very real vulnerability. The very city,
which the Athenians believed had never been taken, had fallen rather
easily to the Dorians. To make matters worse, it could happen again,
especially in view of the Kylonian crime.The general fear and rage cre-
ated by the seizure of the akropolis may have spurred the Alkmeonidai
furiously to slaughter the remaining Kylonians, thinkingif they thought
at allthat they could get away with it. If that was the case, they were
dead wrong. Kylons seizure of the akropolis evoked emotions that
were turned back on the slaughterers once they had perpetrated their
crime. The slaughter had polluted the altars and implicated the gods in
the affair: the Athenians seem to have believed that the Alkmeonid crime
invited divine retribution. If the Megarians came again, they would come
with the gods on their side and Athena would not hold her hands out
over the city.We can only sense the atmosphere of doom that must have
pervaded the minds of the Athenians in the aftermath of the sphage
.
105
In the wake of the slaughter, along with this demoralization and fear,
were anger, recrimination, and divisiveness.The Athenians were revulsed
by the Alkmeonidai and what they had done. Of course, such feelings had
to have been greater and more pronounced nearer in time to the com-
mission of the crime.
106
In fact, it would seem that what followed the
Kylonian affair affected the Athenian war effort against Megara funda-
mentally, as we shall presently see. The Alkmeonidai were obviously
enemies of Theagenes and Megara at the time Kylon attempted his coup:
because they were in power as archons during a period of hostility with
Megara, they are reasonably to be identied as leaders of the general resist-
ance against the Megarians during the war. The outrage committed by
Alkmeonidai archons nevertheless provided opportunities for their ene-
mies, who now saw a chance to prot from their crime and the weakness
it had created and to deal them out of Athenian politics.
We do not know the sequencing of events after the Kylonian crime
or precisely how long it was before the Alkmeonid perpetrators of
the sphage
were tried formally (if they were) and then exiled.The author
of the Ath.Pol., whose source was probably an Atthis, a local chronicle of
Athens, and Plutarch, whose source for the Kylonian affair could have
been the same, imply that time enough had passed for some of the guilty
o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
to have died.
107
(Thucydides, who mentions that the polluted were
driven out during the Spartan intervention under Kleomenes, implies the
same inasmuch as the second expulsion entailed exhumation and its rit-
uals would presumably resemble those involved with the rst.)
108
It is at
least plausible that the Alkmeonidai, however hated they had become in
the aftermath of the Kylonian crime, did not immediately relinquish their
grasp on the political power they so stubbornly defended and were not
instantly driven from the city for their crime.
As war leaders, the Alkmeonidai may not have been damned by the
Athenians until further military setbacks occurred that could then have
been portrayed by their enemies as fruits of their pollution. Plutarch states
that stasis resulted from the Kylonian affair, that it lasted for some time,
and that,the Megarians taking advantage of the turmoil, the Athenians
lost Nisaia and were driven out of Salamis again.
109
Of course,
Plutarchs testimony is questionable because it is late and somewhat con-
fused (especially with regard to Nisaia), but it is possible that things did
occur along these lines and that the loss of Salamis was attributed to the
pollution of the Alkmeonidai.A time between crime and punishment and
events within it that were disastrous for the Athenians, in particular, a
defeat in battle against the Megarians and subsequent loss of Salamis,
would explain what evidence we have and why the living were punished
with exile but the dead exhumed.
There is some further evidence for a hiatus in the war involving
Salamis beginning with its loss to the Athenians. It derives from a curi-
ous, quite problematic passage in Plutarchs Life of Solon (.+). In it,
Plutarch supplies context for Solons famous poem Salamis: When those
in the city, having been involved in a long and dicult war with the
Megarians over Salamis, were worn out with it, they made a law prohibit-
ing anyone to advocate by written word or speech that the city contend
again for Salamis on pain of death.
110
Solon, it is said, took this very badly
and devised a way around it. His device, feigned madness, then became
the means for his recitation of Salamis, a poem advocating exactly what
was prohibited, that is, going to war with Megara over the island (Frs. +
West).
111
This lawhas been held in great suspicion, with Solons feigned
madness and even the venue of the agora taken to be quite implausible.
112
However that may be, the poem itself, rather than what Plutarch says
about it, dating to the late seventh or very early sixth century i.c.r., must
be the bedrock for any reconstruction of its context.We must rely on it
certainly in the rst instance.
The Path to Fame +
At a minimum, the poem corroborates the notion that Athens lost
Salamis, that the loss was sometime in the past relative to the time of
Solons recitation, and that, by the loss, the Athenians had been rendered
somehow incapable of mounting any offensive to gain the island back in
the meantime. In the extant fragments of Salamis, Solon mentions the
dicult disgrace (calepov n t ai\ sco~), which, along with his coinage
Salamivnafevtai (Salamis abandoners), indicates that Salamis was either
let go by or wrested forcibly away from the Athenians.
113
Thoughts of
disgrace are very prominent in the poem: Solons words are in fact very
similar to those of Kallinos (F. +), who attempted to rouse the young men
of his city to war after defeat. Obviously the Athenians were quiescent
when Solon thought that they should be active.
Plutarch offers plausible supplementation to the poem, saying that Solon
was motivated to act from indignation at the disgrace but also because he
saw many young men itching to begin the war again. Now Plutarch may
well have had much more of Salamis before him than we do, and those parts
may have comprised the basis for his statements with regard to Solon and
Salamis.The author of the Ath.Pol., who, like Plutarch, had more of Solons
corpus, seems to concur with Plutarch that a good deal of time had passed
between what happened to Salamis and Solons poem.
114
All of this makes a good deal of sense: Solon was addressing primarily
young men, exhorting them to war against Megara for Salamis, something
they and the Athenians obviously were not engaged in and had not been
engaged in for some time. If, as seems the case, Solons exhortation oc-
curred around the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth cen-
tury i.c.r., and if we may assume that a whole generation of young men
had not seen combat with the Megarians at the time of the recitation,
then it is surely reasonable to think that the Athenian loss of Salamis oc-
curred outside of a generation earlier or around the time of Kylons coup.
If that is so, then the Athenians will have sustained the kind of defeat that
essentially deprived them of the ability to ght, that is, a loss affecting a
generation. That, too, ts Solons words.
115
It is the kind of defeat that
would constitute a sea change in Athenian affairs and sweep those charged
with it (the Alkmeonidai) right out of power. It would be then, too, that
the pollution would have become an explanation for the grievous loss
and a cause for ghting no more against the gods will.
I offer the following reconstruction. Rather than recoil from the sup-
pression of Kylons revolt, under the leadership of Theagenes, the Megar-
ians took advantage of the fear, confusion, and divisiveness prevailing in
: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
Athensthe stasis to which Plutarch alludesfollowing the Kylonian
slaughter.
116
The consternation at Athens opened the door for Megarian
aggression with regard to Salamis and Eleusis. Such aggression may have
been met at length by the Athenians in force, led by the Alkmeonidai.
Perhaps the latter staked everything on a victory to reverse their worsen-
ing political fortunes and the growing belief among the Athenians that
they were all cursed as long as the Alkmeonidai governed. Whoever led
the Athenians, the Megarians inicted a crushing defeat on them and took
Salamis. So bad was the defeat that the Athenians wanted to suppress it in
their collective memory, just as they suppressed other painful collective
memories.
117
Now any Athenian taking the eld after the Kylonian af-
fair was already enfeebled by the demoralization caused by religious scru-
ples but also by the rhetoric of enemies of the Alkmeonidai. Any defeat
would have provided the enemies of the Alkmeonidai with all they
needed to get rid of them and install themselves.This, however, was a stun-
ning defeat.We can imagine that these enemies charged the slaughterers
of the Kylonians and their pollution with the defeat: the gods had made
it so. Further hostilities with Megara over Salamis were doomed and
should cease, they would urge. The gods were punishing the Athenians
for the pollution; let the perpetrators, even those who had fallen in battle
and were buried, be expelled, and let there be no more talk of Salamis or
the war with Megara!
To sum up, as public opinion turned against the Alkmeonidai, so did it
turn against those apparently most opposed to the Megarians.The living
Alkmeonidai implicated were thus exiled some time after the Kylonian
affair, very possibly in the wake of military defeat following the sphage
,
to be replaced by opponents who did not prosecute the war effort, espe-
cially entailing recovery of Salamis. An Athenian party reactionary to
the Alkmeonidai, a group or cabal that is likely to have been less pro-
Megarian than it was opportunistically anti-Alkmeonid and ready to
prot from the Alkmeonid fall from power, will have helped to channel
public opinion against the polluted but also against the war. The two
were certainly implicated.
118
In so doing, these opportunists harnessed
adverse public emotion, which the polluted had aroused by their actions
against the Kylonians and, I am assuming, because of the ensuing cata-
strophic defeat in the eld.
119
Megaras work had been done for it by the
divisiveness of the Athenians: the peace party saw to that.
That shortly after their accession and such a defeat the new leaders
would have introduced a law to stie further advocacy of war with
The Path to Fame
Megara over Salamis and that the Athenians would have approved it en
masse is by no means hard to believe, especially if the introduction of the
law were made in the wake of the great defeat and the complete loss of the
island.The same kind of interdiction, voted by the Athenians altogether, is
to be found in their later reaction to Phrynichos The Capture of Miletos in
, i.c.r., his commemoration of the failed Ionian revolt, and the destruc-
tion of Athens great colony, Miletos. Performance of the play, or rather the
reminder of something so very painful, caused such an uproar and evoked
such emotional response from the Athenians that they forbade it by law
ever to be performed again and ned its author quite severely. The
emotion of the moment created a consensus for censorship. Sorrow for
Miletos and their kindred there was surely partially responsible for this re-
vulsion; but fear for themselves, the fact that the Athenians imagined the
same or worse for the city, must have dominated their emotions.The in-
terdiction on the plays performance was for the present and future not the
past, and, we imagine, talk about Miletos fate was also suppressed. Thus,
while the Athenian reaction to Phrynichos play may have had practical
purposes, it certainly had psychological ones. Banning memory of Miletos
fall and the plays performance was after all an apotropaic exercise.
120
In
the case of the loss of Salamis, similar emotions could well have played right
into the hands of those who founded their political positions on platforms
of nonbelligerence toward Megara and silence about the war and Salamis.
One must not talk about what could only bring further pain, suffering, and
possibly worse, that is, Salamis, the defeat or the war.
It is ironic indeed to think that Theagenes and the Megarians got most
of what they wanted presumably from Kylons imagined success precisely
as a result of Kylons actual failure.The Athenians were weakened by the
shock of events, rst stunned by the akropolis occupation, then revulsed
by the sacrilegious murders on the altars of the Semnai Theai, and nally
defeat in a battle against the Megarians. They were surely apprehensive
and fearful about what would happen next. Athens anti-Megarian war
leaders were replaced with others more passive to Megara but interested,
above all, in maintaining their own newly obtained power. These were
concerned to clamp down on any troublemaking warmongers who
might imperil their own hold on Athens. As the Spartans knew only too
well that going to war involved unforeseen possibilities for disaster, so did
these new Athenian leaders seem to realize that their power was best
served by quietude and conservatism. It remained for Solon to rekindle
Athenian enthusiasm for the war with Megara.
r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
. soiox :xi s:i:xi s
Those who proted politically from the Kylonian massacre maintained
their power for more than three decades (i.e., from ca. ooo: i.c.r. to
around the time of Solons successful plea for renewing the war for
Salamis, ca. ooo i.c.r.). If there was a law prohibiting mention of Salamis,
an actual treaty or truce with Megara, or simply a de facto policy of
nonaggression, these were effectively repealed when the Athenians re-
newed hostilities with the Megarians.A new regime, pro-war in sentiment,
replaced the appeasers.
121
Solons political fortunes must be linked to this
new group, at least early on, since, in addition to Salamis, the sentiments
of which prove his pro-war stance, Solon is said to have become war leader
of the Athenian army subsequent to the poems publication. Such a role
is by no means unreasonable.
122
Though we do not know if Solon spoke of it in any of his other poems,
the only reliable information about the times and their events, the extant
fragments of Salamis, amount to a bid for war leadership and,
regardless of the venue in which they were spoken, imply that Solon as-
pired to become the war leader of the Athenians.
123
Solons words in the
poem are hortatory; his tone is bellicose. He obviously means for the
Athenians to follow him to war.
124
Political and military leadership were
thoroughly implicated in Athenian history up to the fourth century, and
the Athenians grant of a special commission to Solon later implies that
he had accomplished something outstanding and obviously patriotic.That
commission made him dictator in effect.
125
Although the information we
have about Solons leadership in the conict for Salamis from later sources
is garbled, it supports the assumption that he actually got what he wanted
and became strate
gia
precisely because Herodotos uses the word here; still others have taken it
that strate
goi will have been appointed as required but were not regularly
elected.
132
The controversy seems to be overstated, for it is unreasonable
to attach constitutional ramications involving the pre-Kleisthenic mili-
tary of Athens to Herodotos use of the word strathgivh in this instance.
Herodotos does not appear to be concerned with Athens ocesor any
other Greek ones, for that matterwhen he terms Peisistratos a strate
gos:
he is certainly not when he names several Persian commanders of the
sixth century as holders of strate
giai.
133
It is seems far more likely that, as
in the case of the Persians, Herodotos merely seeks to designate Peisis-
o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
tratos war or army leader, whether he was ocially titled strate
gos or
something else.
134
He means to imply that Peisistratos was overall com-
mander at Nisaia. Peisistratos precise title is of little consequence in rela-
tion to what he actually did during the war. Clearly, as he was credited
with the victory at Nisaia, so did he lead Athens army as its supreme com-
mander on that occasion.
Herodotos tells us further (+.,.) that the Athenians recalled Peisis-
tratos great deeds (megala erga) in the Megarian war at the time they
voted him a bodyguard.They were undoubtedly prompted to do this by
Peisistratos himself at the time he asked for the bodyguard. Earlier in this
chapter, I suggested that the Peisistratid-Neleid link was publicized by
Peisistratos in order to help him acquire leadership of the Athenians, rst
in war and then in peace. Fitness for command in crisis, success in war,
and aptitude for leadership in peace are all primary messages of the
myths of Melanthos and Kodros. The optimum time for Peisistratos to
have publicized these myths rst was before he took command in the
Megarian war, emphasizing for the Athenians that his ancestors, though
from outside of Athens, saved the city from Dorians once long ago.The
implication was that, as their apt descendant, he would do so again.
Peisistratos target audience in this rst instance was undoubtedly those
Athenians most involved in the Megarian war. They were meant to be
impressed not only by the myths argument for Peisistratos tness for
command but also their prediction that complete victory was at hand.
There are in fact several grounds for believing that the Athenians ght-
ing the Megarians were Peisistratos rst constituents and the ones who
made him strate
gia of Pei-
sistratos might best be seen as a eld promotion brought about by the
emergency of the war and Peisistratos success in it.That actually makes a
good deal of sense in view of Peisistratos distinction from and relative
powerlessness before city politicians later. (The constituency that made
Peisistratos a strate
gos could not have been the men from the hills,since,
according to Herodotos, that faction did not yet exist. In fact, there are
other reasons to exclude it, as we shall see in chapter III.:.A.)
The most reasonable range of years for Peisistratos involvement in the
Megarian war is ca. ;o i.c.r. (see appendices C and D). He was thirty
ca. ; and so is likeliest to have earned the strate
gia.
The deeds should be associated with the actions that led up to the coup
de grce, not the other way around. Salamis and Eleusis will have to have
gured in some way, since both were at stake during the war and both
were vital for the Athenians to possess securely before an attack could be
launched on the Megarian homeland. Targeting Nisaia suggests, in fact,
that a broader strategy was in operation and along with it a campaign (or
campaigns) that sought to secure preliminary objectives before the pri-
mary objective, the Megarians main port. Peisistratos megala erga must
be thought of as among these preliminaries.
Now, it is reasonable to assume that when the attack on Nisaia was
nally made it was in concert with ships and after Salamis had been taken.
Nisaia was the port of Megara, and it would have been extremely fool-
hardy for the Athenians to have ventured as far as Nisaia if Salamis were
still in the hands of the enemy. Nearly the entire hostile island must then
have been circumnavigated or marched around before an attack could pro-
ceed, Megarian corsairs could have shot at any time at the rear or on the
ank of the Athenians, and the attacking force would have been forced to
sail or march all the way back harrassed by hostiles.Such a land attack seems
entirely out of the question, as we shall presently see. A long ship journey
would not only have been extremely risky, but such an operation is a far
cry from the lightning-type sea raids that our sources indicate occurred
during the Megarian war.Without Salamis rmly under Athenian control,
any attack on Nisaia would have been strategically unsound.
Later authors indicate that Peisistratos participated in the recovery of
Salamis, but their accounts are problematic.
135
Some scholars have argued
that Peisistratos could not have participated in the retaking of Salamis,
since no mention of it is made by Herodotos and a victory on the island
would have overshadowed Nisaia.
136
This is an odd argument, indeed,
conditioned as it is by a strange interpretation of Herodotos. It is, above
The Path to Fame ,
all, quite to the contrary of what Herodotos implies when he mentions
Peisistratos great deeds: indeed, by specifying Nisaia but none of the other
deeds, the historian suggests that the successful action at the Megarian
port was Peisistratosgreatest deed,overshadowing all the others. By any
strategists calculation, and certainly by what was achieved there, the tak-
ing of Nisaia was by far the most important of Peisistratos deeds since it
dealt the death blow to the Megarian war effort. (I return to this later.)
On the other hand, suppression by Herodotos sources (or by
Herodotos) of Peisistratos part in reacquiring Salamis for Athens would
be no surprise. Herodotos, or more likely his source(s), knew much more
to attribute to Peisistratos during the war than was reported in the Histo-
ries. Aristotle, who classes Peisistratos among the other warlike tyrants
(Pol. +oa), also seems to have had more information about Peisistratos
and what he did obviously during the war than he cared to relate.
Ancient Greek sources conated the actions of Solon and Peisistratos with
regard to Salamis. Some modern scholars have suggested that Peisistratos
credit for conquering the island was made over to Solon in order to de-
prive him of it.
137
While it is, after all, very dicult to unravel exactly
who did what or was credited with what in antiquity (see section D.:), it
is far more unlikely that Peisistratos would have been connected at all
with the conquest of Salamis had he nothing to do with it. (In fact, that
Peisistratos was recalled at all for Nisaia in Herodotos is remarkable in
view of Athens ocial hatred of the tyrants in the fth century.) By the
same token, it appears much likelier that credit for other actions against
the Megarians, particularly involving Salamis, was made over to Solon,
the revered sage of Athens, especially because of Solons famous connec-
tion with the island through his poem Salamis. At all events, securing
Salamis was a primary objective for the Athenians during the Megarian
war, and so it is quite on the cards that one of Peisistratos deeds was per-
formed in relation to it. In fact, it is not too much to imagine that he was
instrumental in the permanent recovery of the island for Athens.
Eleusis, too, that disputed, forward position and gateway either to the
Megarid or to Attika, had to have been Athenian before an attack on the
Megarid could be made.There is some evidence that Eleusis also gured
among Peisistratos megala erga, but the evidence for this is more prob-
lematic. Aineias Taktikos (.++) makes Peisistratos the leader of the
Athenians when he learned that a Megarian raid on Eleusis was in the
ong. He not only saved Eleusis but turned the Megarian attack back on
itself. While Aineias testimony is unreliable, as we shall see, it stands to
o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
reason that Eleusis was subject to Megarian raids as long as the war con-
tinued. Like Salamis, securing Eleusis was a natural preliminary to any for-
ward operation involving the Megarid itself, and Aineias connection of
Peisistratos to it as war leader might be taken as a vague recollection of
action Peisistratos was actually involved in there. At least, some ancient
tradition placed him there during the war.
Assaults from ships are plausible tactics to have been employed by either
side during the war. For their part, the Megarians needed to do no more
than man their ships and slip down the sound from Vourkhadi Bay, hold-
ing to the Megarian shore, to light upon the Eleusinians, killing and steal-
ing what they could (g. ).
138
This was quick, easy, and lucrative, and far
safer than marching overland to ght a pitched battle. Of course, the
episode described by Aineias involving Peisistratos at Eleusis is conated
with a reciprocal amphibious Athenian raid at a landfall near Megara (g.
o) and, as we shall see, is most likely based upon Peisistratos reputation
for cleverness.While Aineias story can be taken, at best, only vaguely to
refer to any military action seen by Peisistratos at Eleusis during the
Megarian war, it does give some idea about Eleusis exposure and vulner-
ability to Megarian attack during the war.
139
A further reason why Eleu-
sis had to be secured before Nisaia was that it could provide a base for a
punitive Megarian counterattack on Athens.The merits of Aineias testi-
mony aside, action involving Eleusis, whether the Athenians captured it
from the Megarians or consolidated their hold on it, could certainly have
gured among Peisistratos great deeds during the Megarian war.
Naval operations described by Aineias and other authors are sugges-
tive of the type of tactics that the Athenians and Megarians actually em-
ployed during the war. In fact, all the Athenian war activities of the early
sixth century i.c.r., whether attributed to Solon or Peisistratos, in-
volved the use of ships and ghters who issued from them onto shore.
It is therefore reasonable to think that the Athenians attacked the
Megarians from their ships just as the Megarians attacked the Athenians
from theirs. For an assault on Nisaia, Athenian naval strength had obvi-
ously to have reached some higher degree of strength and eciency
than before. If that is so and Eleusis and Salamis were secured, we may
imagine some preliminary Athenian hit and run type raids, on the or-
der of those Aineias attributes to the Megarians at Eleusis.As mentioned,
these were quick, of lower risk and more protable than full-blown war-
fare and the booty and slaves taken would have made them popular with
Megarian and Athenian warriors alike. Peisistratos must have been in-
The Path to Fame +
volved in at least some of this type of naval warfare and must have dis-
tinguished himself in it.
The capture of Nisaia itself suggests that the Athenians nally hit upon
a strategy to win the war, the ultimate aim of which, no matter the extent
of the plan, was the taking of Megaras main port.This strategy could have
been arrived at much earlier in the going or when the sites requisite for
the attack on Nisaia (viz., Salamis and Eleusis) had come rmly under
Athenian control. The rst objective of any Athenian strategy during the
war had to have been securing Attic lands and possessions in forward areas.
Second,Athenian naval strength had to be built up to a greater degree than
before, the ships organized to ght together, and their crews drilled to such
an extent as would make them capable of a successful landing at and attack
upon Megaras port.Third, someone had to grasp the fact that the key to
ending the war was Nisaia and so to have observed that Megara depended
on its port as its lifeline.
140
In fact, it must have taken someone who looked
with fresh eyes at a war that had gone on for years inconclusively and who
determined that something different had to be done.
Targeting Megaras main port as the end objective of a campaign,
whether long or short, implies a comprehensive grasp of strategy not at
all at home in the inconclusive border warfare, the hit-and-hit back,that
seems to have predominated before the arrival of Peisistratos.
141
A new-
comer like Peisistratos might see things clearer, understand that such rel-
atively petty warfare as had been the rule would only prolong the war,
and see that bolder strokes were needed. Certainly Peisistratos ability to
grasp the bigger picturewas demonstrated by his preparations to return
to Athens during his second exile: then, for nearly a decade, he set about
amassing resources far from Athens to effect his homecoming (see chap-
ter IV.+). It could well be, then, that Peisistratos was the architect not just
of the victory at Nisaia but of the campaign and a string of victories, large
and small, leading to the nal one with which he is credited.
142
At all
events, it is quite clearly implied that Peisistratos performed in the war as
other Athenians before him had not.
D. Nisaia
+. The Testimonies of Aineias Taktikos and Others
The earliest, most extensive ancient testimonia we have about a major
Athenian victory over the Megarians in the Megarid involving Peisis-
: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
tratos derives from Aineias Taktikos, whose Poliorke
se was sudden and effective. It took so short a time that the Lemni-
ans were quite unable to believe it. They were altogether unprepared,
found themselves in no position to resist him, and so surrendered.
163
Such a lightning attack required careful planning. Perhaps the Atheni-
ans had established contact with traitors inside the port who would open
the gates, just as they were to do during the Peloponnesian war.
164
Pre-
sumably, the Athenians had become aware of Nisaias particular weak-
nesses. Observing or gaining intelligence as to conditions at Nisaia, the
Athenians may have simply shown up, bearing down from the sea, just as
Miltiades did at Myrrhina and just as Lysandros would do to them at
Aigospotamoi in o i.c.r. The concerted action of at least several ships
is certainly implied, and credit for the operation must be Peisistratos as
commander of record at Nisaia. Inasmuch as Peisistratos built up over-
whelming force before marching to Palle
ne
los and then to the Strymon (cf. chapter IV.+.B.). These may
have attached themselves to Peisistratos early in his career and perhaps in-
cluded members of the Philaid genos, some of whom were later high-
r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
level cooperatives with the tyrants.This does not by any means mean to
say that Peisistratos had the manpower of the mesogaia behind him when
he entered the war or even later when he tried for the tyranny. In fact,
nothing suggests that Peisistratos ever commanded a large force of meso-
gaians.We have no notion of the size of a group of his followers, friends,
or retainers (philoi).
The arrival of Peisistratos could nevertheless have hallmarked that of
an important new contingent of Athenians from the mesogaia whose skills
or strengths whatever its size were brought to bear in the Megarian strug-
gle for Athens.As mentioned earlier,Theognis of Megara remarks on men
down from the hills,indicating the appearance of outlanders there. Pei-
sistratos and his circle might signal something similar at Athens. Worn
out by the war, both cities were perhaps turning to their hinterlands at
this stage for help in the long struggle.The very renewal of Athenian op-
erations against Megara might be taken to suggest that new resources had
been located and could be deployed.There is, to be sure, no sign of any-
thing like a mass movement from the hinterland to Athens, and we might
suspect that Megara was also less than inundated by swarms from the
hills, the crabbiness of Theognis notwithstanding. Certainly, diakrians
did not weigh in for Peisistratos in any signicant numbers greater than
the astoi of Athens.Yet, even a small group of well-trained ghting men,
perhaps near professionals like Peisistratos himself, could have tipped the
scales in the Megarian war, making up in energy and skill what they may
have lacked in numbers. Obviously, the Athenians had established supe-
riority in strategic planning and execution.
To summarize, it is most likely that Nisaia was taken by the Athenians
under Peisistratos in a naval raid launched from Salamis. The attack was
planned out and should have been preceded by a buildup of some land
and sea force. It was intended to deliver a crippling blow to Megara by
depriving it of its port and so of access to the sea.The Athenians had no
intention of keeping the port city or, for that matter, any part of the
Megarid. Rather, possession of Nisaia was probably to be traded for the
permanent security of Eleusis, Salamis, and Phaleron. (Some further re-
calcitrancy about ownership of Salamis by the Megarians is indicated in
our sources; it was nevertheless settled through Spartan arbitration: see
section E.) It is reasonable to think that, as later, Peisistratos was accom-
panied by a group of adherents. His leadership may have attracted some
mesogaians, just as his cause later attracted many to his standard before
Palle
ne
. Peisistratos did not raise the region, however, nor did he bring
The Path to Fame ,
with him its total muster by any means. He was not the leader of the
mesogaia, and his inuence there was not so great as to allow him to set
himself at the head of a great many of its warriors.
After the war, undoubtedly at least in part because of Nisaia, Megara
quickly sank to tertiary status to be dominated both by its adversaries and
its bigger neighbors, Corinth and Athens, and by its dependence on im-
ports.
171
The victory for the Athenians marked the effective end of
Megarian power in the region: Megara posed no further threat to Athens
of itself. For their part, the Athenians had avenged the seizure of akropo-
lis by the minions of Theagenes almost tit for tat.The Athenians were also
now freed to become more active in the area of former Megarian inter-
est, that is, toward the Euxine. In fact, it is quite likely that Peisistratos
victory at Nisaia stimulated Athenian colonial activity in the Troad and
then in the Thracian Chersone
se.
E. Manipulation of Myth and the Megarian War
Although Herodotos patently ascribes the victory at Nisaia to Peisistratos,
some effort was made by later authors to make the credit for the Athen-
ian success in the Megarian war over to Solon, especially with regard to
Salamis.
172
The trend may have begun with the Atthidographers, who re-
ect popular Athenian attitudes of the fth and fourth centuries toward the
tyrant and the sage.These local chronicles seem to have strongly inuenced
the accounts of the Ath.Pol., Plutarchs Life of Solon, and perhaps even
Aineias Taktikos. Athenian claims to Salamis, grounded in prehistorical
myth (according to the Athenians), were said to have been asserted by
Solon in an arbitration case over which the Lakedaimonians presided as
judges. Until that arbitration, the war seems not to have ocially ended.
173
If there was a Spartan arbitration and the case was in fact settled in
Athens favor, then it is much likelier that Peisistratos was involved. It is
far more likely that he, rather than Solon, put forth the claim that Salamis
was inveterately Athenian on the grounds that it had been donated to
Athens by Eurysakes and Philaios, the sons of the great hero Aias.
174
The myth established that Salamis had been ceded to the Athenians
in the Bronze Age. It can hardly be a coincidence that the myth in-
volved Philaios, the eponymous for the home deme of the Peisistratidai.
(This is explicitly noted in Plutarchs account.) Not only did the myth
emphasize that Salamis was Athenian from the time of the heroes,
but also that Peisistratos was especially connected to it, as he was con-
oo r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
nected to Philaios. It was, as it were, his island. Obviously, the myth of the
Eurysakid/Philaid cession served Peisistratos and his purposes far more
than it did Solon.
175
A similar kind of connection between Athens and Aias is to be found
in the famous interpolation in the Iliad (:.;), which had the Bronze
Age Athenians and Salaminians neighbors in the Achaian battle line be-
fore the walls of Troy.
Aias from Salamis led two-and-ten ships
And brought them where the Athenian ranks were drawn up.
The lines actually further support Athens claim to Salamis by making
Salaminians and Athenians comrades-in-arms.
176
The Megarians of
course declared the lines counterfeit and proposed their own alternative,
apparently to no avail.
177
In any case, our interest is not in the debate
about the lines authenticitythey are in fact interpolated. It is more in
the fact of the debate or, rather, the roles thought to be played by those
who are credited with concocting the argument. Strabo observes (,.+.+o)
that ancient opinion was divided as to whether Solon or Peisistratos de-
vised and inserted these lines into the Iliad. Of course, the Peisistratids
were famously associated with the epic as its rst recensionists but also as
interpolators.
178
Propaganda that Salamis was Athenian of old was likely
to have been generated while Salamis was still in dispute: the lines should
be attributed to Peisistratos or Solon.
179
But the only source that attaches
a recension of the Iliad to Solon is the very late and unreliable Diogenes
Laertios, an ascription that is at odds with the chorus of attribution to the
Peisistratids by earlier authors.
180
On the evidence, this insertion,
grounded in a time when such connections needed to be made, was the
work of the Peisistratids.
A further kind of proof about Salamis original ownership, albeit
rather oblique, once more said to have been adduced by Solon, also seems
better ascribed to Peisistratos. According to Plutarch (Sol. +o.), Solon
claimed that Salamis was Athenian because the orientation of the graves
of the earlier Salaminians, that is, facing west, reected Athenian practice:
hence the Salaminians were Athenians. Hereas the Megarian, however,
countered the Athenian claim (FrGrHist o F +), saying that the Megar-
ians, too, buried their bodies facing west. Moreover, the Megarians in-
terred multiple bodies in them, as did the early Salaminians, whereas the
Athenians buried only one body per grave. Once more, nothing is proven
The Path to Fame o+
by the argumentation, but, if the story is true, it is interesting that the
Athenians were the rst to resort to an argument from archaeology to ad-
vance their claims to the island.
There are other examples of such science applied by the Athenians
of the fth century to the interpretation of graves.Thucydides says (+..+)
that Karians were recognized as the earlier inhabitants of the island of
Delos, in part because of the method of their burial: this was determined
during the Peloponnesian war when the Athenians took up all the graves
on the island in order to purify it (.+o.:).
181
Thucydides also reports
that Peisistratos had taken up the graves within sight of the temple of
Delian Apollo over one hundred years earlier. According to Herodotos
(+.o.:), this seems to have occurred shortly after Palle
ne
.
182
Pre-
sumably, Peisistratos had provided the Athenians with both the reason
for and method of taking up the graves in order to purify the island.
183
At least we read of no Athenians specically associated with the actual
opening of graves other than Peisistratos. Could something similar to the
purication of Delos have occurred on Salamis? It makes some sense that
the Athenians would want to signal a permanent change of the islands
ownership from Megarian to Athenian, and of course Dorians were un-
welcome as impure on the Athenian akropolis.The Athenian argument
from archaeology for Salamis seems more likely to have been spawned
by Peisistratos than by Solon, to whom no such archaeological endeavors
are otherwise attached.
184
We may add one more potential transfer to Solon, again involving
the Spartan arbitration, but vaguer still than those already mentioned.
Why would the Spartan Dorians nd in favor of Ionian Athens claim to
Salamis and rule against the Dorian Megarians? Surely, if there was such
an arbitrationand that is not all certaina mere propagandistic argu-
ment would not have impressed the judges.
185
In fact, the Spartans did
rule for Athens. It could be that the Spartans sought their own advantage,
weakening Megara on behalf of its important ally, Corinth. But Megara
was depleted by the time of Nisaia and would pose no further threat to
Corinth or Athens. Giving Salamis to Athens would, on the contrary,
strengthen the Athenians and their presence in the Saronic Gulf. It cer-
tainly looks like a political favor done on behalf of Athens.
Now the Peisistratidai were guest-friends (xenoi) of the Spartans
and were highly thought of by them until the time of Hippias very near
the end of the sixth century.
186
Solon had no such famous link to the
Spartans. Kleomenes, the king of Sparta in the latter sixth century, had
o: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
pretensions to Achaian descent and entered the temple of Athena, he de-
clared, not as Dorian but, rather astonishingly, as an Achaian (Hdt.
.;:.). Kleomenes was surely not alone among the Lakedaimonians in
having such pretensions. Peisistratos apparently used Bronze Age myth to
Athens advantage; his sons were responsible for interpolating the famous
lines about Aias and Athens. Could the pretensions of the Spartan roy-
alsand Kleomenes own sense of leave to enter the temple of Athena
have been created through the manipulation of myth by the Peisistratids?
Did Peisistratos allege anity to the Spartan kings? Is that how the Pei-
sistratid xenia with the Spartans came about?
187
Some special connection
with the Spartan kings is indicated that overrode national and racial dis-
tinctions and made the Spartans more favorable to the Athenians than the
Megarians. The somewhat surprising award of Salamis to the Athenians
by the Spartans is better explained if the Spartans ruled on behalf of their
guest-friends and kin, the Peisistratids and the Athenians.
There is yet a quite curious detail of Solons campaign for Salamis re-
ported in Plutarch, which might amount to one last transfer credit from
Peisistratos to Solon. It is, however, murky and not easy to construe. In
Plutarchs Life of Solon (,.:), before action on Salamis, Solon anchors
his ship off Salamis facing toward Euboia (my italics).
188
While some
have suggested that this might reect local idiom involving the island of
Atalante, offshore from Salamis, and its relationship to the Attic mainland
(i.e.,facing toward Euboia [= Attika?]),
189
it is more reasonably drawn
from a story that included Euboia somehow in it. Of course, the diakria
on the eastern Attic coast (certainly including Brauron/Philadai) faces
Euboia, and the description of Solons anchorage seems more appropos
to that region of Attika than to Attika under a different name.
190
Solon
was not connected in any special way with Euboia, and the cryptic ref-
erence here is, once more, better suited to Peisistratos than to Solon.
191
The meaning of this reference to Euboia is unknown, however, and it is
dicult to see what it could possibly mean for the controversy involving
ownership of Salamis, unless perhaps it had some connection to Philaios
the Salaminian and his immigration to eastern Attika.
Later sources did in fact transfer what was credited to Peisistratos (or
possibly his sons) over to Solon.The divergence of creditation is more im-
plicit in some of our sources (viz., Plutarch), in others more explicit (e.g.,
Ath.Pol., Strabo). The reasons for this transference are obvious: the Pei-
sistratids were ocially execrated as tyrants by the Athenians from the
early fth century; Solon was, of course, the Ur-spirit of the democracy,
The Path to Fame o
the genius of democratic Athens.
192
The ocial polarization, derived from
then, seems to be responsible for the origins of the controversy: it went
so far as to designate Solon a Salaminian.
193
Later authors, possibly with
the divided opinions of Atthidographers or others before them, chose one
side or the other, although the preponderance of opinion seems to have
followed the ocial Athenian lead and given perhaps much undue credit
to Solon.There is, it is to be noted, no sure way to know whether the in-
formation attaching to either was valid to begin with, although we may
say that what presents itself as a kind of propaganda uniting Salamis,
Athens, and Peisistratos seems best credited to the Peisistratids.
Solon was responsible for an important victory over the Megarians at
Salamisthat seems certain. But it was Peisistratos who secured the island
for Athens by capturing Nisaia. Perhaps he or his heirs established legal
claim to the island by repeating their own myths about it.These seem to
have been duly rehearsed for the Spartans, who nally assented to Athe-
nian ownership of the island. (The arbitration, if it occurred, was a master-
stroke for the Athenians, for it placed the prestige and might of the
Lakedaminonians behind their decision for Athens. Presumably, the Pei-
sistratids knew going into the arbitration what to expect from their guest-
friends.). Solons victory at Salamis may only be considered a minor one,
a round in the war with Megara, since Salamis was insecure until Nisaia
nally fell. Peisistratos, however, effectively ended the era of Megarian ex-
pansiveness in the Saronic Gulf region and overseas and it was from this
time that Athens began in earnest its own expansion and to establish per-
manent overseas interests.The stimulus for this surely was victory over the
Megarians, but it was also due to Peisistratos, whose interests in colonial-
ism were xed even before he had rooted his tyranny at Athens.
F. Summary
Athens and Megara were involved for most of the seventh and early sixth
centuries in a war for possession of Salamis and Eleusis. Megara was
mostly successful before the turn of the century, inicting at least one very
serious defeat upon the Athenians around the time of Kylons attempted
tyranny. Athens was successful thereafter in large part due to Solon and
then Peisistratos. Peisistratos became strate
mos there.
As we shall see, according to Solon, the only really reliable source for
the period, politics was played out in or near the city by the astoi; Solon
never mentions the country or country folk in his political poetry. Rather,
he implies that city politicians had been competing for power for some
time and that the competition, established certainly by his day, was cen-
tered on the city itself.This condition we may take as fact for the time of
Peisistratos rst foray into Athenian politics, for Herodotos indicates the
same polarity of city-oriented factions before the arrival of Peisistratos as
Solon attests for his time.As a newcomer to this establishment, Peisistratos
required the backing of at least one of the two sides and, of course, its
leader.That, as we shall see, he got. In his rst bid for tyranny, Peisistratos
clearly enjoyed the favor of the de
ri rs+ +.r:xx.
A. Herodotos and the Parties of Attika
+. Introduction
So, although Chilon had advised him [sc. to desist from child begetting],
Hippokrates would not be persuaded. Afterward, that Peisistratos was born
to him, who, when the Athenians of the coast (paraloi) who were led
by Megakles, the son of Alkmeon, and those from the plain (ek tou pediou),
who were led by Lykourgos, the son of Aristolades, were engaged in stasis,
xed his thoughts on the tyranny and assembled his own partisans
(stasio
mos
for a guard to protect him. Earlier Peisistratos had established a good repu-
tation in the war against Megara, having taken Nisaia and performed many
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance o;
other great deeds.The Athenian de
phoroi, for they carried wooden clubs and followed along behind
him. These joined with Peisistratos in rebellion and took the akropolis.
From that point, Peisistratos ruled the Athenians.
2
Herodotos +.,.oo.+.
Thus, we have Herodotos very brief, very allusive, obviously quite in-
complete account of Peisistratos arrival in Athenian politics and of his
initial efforts to become tyrant. Herodotos provides us with no idea what-
soever about Peisistratos actions between his war leadership and the
period just before his rst attempted tyranny. On the contrary, in
Herodotos Peisistratos breaks upon the political scene from out of
nowhere; the mention of Nisaia and his great deeds in the Megarian
war are a later aside, their mention incidental really to his election by
the Athenian de
ne
ne
phoroi to
Peisistratos in the assembly to which Herodotos alludes is a clear-cut
anachronism: how indeed could such precise information have survived
even into the late fth century, that is, the time of the earliest possible
source for this section of the Ath.Pol. (viz., Hellanikos)?
24
Although Plutarchs very late account is the most extensive on the par-
ties, it is nevertheless essentially awed and so even less credible than that
of the Ath.Pol. For him, the parties and their economic reasons for being
eclipse any consequence of leadership or geographical situation.This fun-
damental disagreement with Herodotos robs Plutarchs much later,
categorically derivative account of the parties of most of its historical
validity. Indeed, Plutarchs sources reading of the parties is more c-
tional embellishment than factual account.
25
Of course, Plutarch com-
posed hundreds of years after the events and relies on many creative
intermediaries whose ultimate source must have been Herodotos but
who well exceeded the sparse account he supplies. Both Plutarch and AP
do, however, offer some facts that align to some degree with what Solon
and Herodotos provide and so may be usedvery judiciouslyto de-
velop the picture provided by these. Obviously, the facts that are found to
be in agreement with Solon may be held to be valid, since Solon is the
only contemporary voice for the period.
:. +nr soioxi :x r:c+i oxs
Solon identies only two active political groups at Athens in his day,
an identication, that agrees with Herodotos testimony that only two
staseis existed before Peisistratos formation of a third one. Solon explic-
itly polarizes these, calling one group opo rv (the commons) and the
other, oi o riov ouvoiv xoi pooiv poov oyptoi (those who had
power and were envied because of wealth.)
26
(AP and Plutarch do not in
fact disagree with the fundamentally economic polarization that Solons
extant poetry implies.)
27
Taken altogether, the evidence we have attests
to political bilateralism rather than trilateralism or any political disposi-
tion more complex.
28
The factions in the early-sixth-century crisis are primarily identied
from the extant poems of Solon; later authors had more of Solons cor-
pus than we do, and that fact assures to some degree that they pass along
at least some valid information amid the invalid.The Ath.Pol., which pre-
serves fragments of Solons poems and whose author knew more of them
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance ;
than he transmitted, extends Solons description of the powerful and
wealthy by calling them gno
mos was generally made up of their opposites, that is, the nonaris-
tocratic, non-notable, and nonwealthy (or less wealthy), politically active,
mostly living in or near the asty, and intermittently purposed to obtain
better material ends through political activism. These are the only two
active political entities to which Solon attests, the only ones that appear
to have existed during his political career, and so the only ones that
we are entitled to understand as functional in Athens in the early sixth
century i.c.r.
30
It is important to observe how Solon describes politics in his day, the
dynamics of which are outlined in those descriptions. Although Solon is
at some pains in his poems to identify himself with the de
mos and so to
distance himself from their opposites,
31
he nonetheless reproaches the
Athenians several times for their relentless appetite for gain, an appetite
that obviously will have been greater among the have-nots, that is, at
least the majority of the de
mos
33
wish to destroy this great city, persuaded by
money (chre
masi).
34
The avarice of the political de
mos, which
had apparently encouraged and even expected Solon to become tyrant
(Frs. :, , and ), did not agree that Solon had kept his promises. Other-
wise he would not have had to address the de
mos,
which were evidently articial (or held to be in the aftermath of his com-
mission), were composed before his special commission had been awarded
and had been designed to win the de
mos or concern its condition and desires illustrates its importance al-
ready by the early sixth century.
38
(In fact, the Kylonian crisis shows that
it was important much before: cf. chapter II..A.:.) The de
mos in fact
created the political crisis Solon was empowered to solve, and his
repeated apologies for and explanations of the promises he made to it
underscore its importance in his day.
39
Such promises were apparently
required of him, perhaps as a further means to win the de
mos pledges
to abide by his solutions. Without those pledges, induced by his prom-
ises, the crisis had no real hope of being solved, for the de
mos cooper-
ation over time was required for there to be any meaningful settlement.
40
Third, and it follows from this, Solons promises and other allusions made
by him to the Athenians susceptibility to public speech, that is, to prom-
ises made orally, imply that the de
mos
was crucial for achieving and maintaining any political arrangement, and
political leaders may have done their utmost to persuade it to their ends,
the de
mos couldand
didabandon its leaders when either promises were not kept or better
offers were heard.
43
From his charting of the de
mosand Solonlearned.
Further evidence suggests that the de
mos there.
48
Second, Peisistratos addressed the
Athenians assembled in the agora, a necessity that underscores the fact not
only that the tyranny could not simply be brokered solely by the so-called
elites in back rooms but also that the de
mos
through visual and verbal deception, and there is no reason to doubt that
deception actually gured to some extent, for, according to Solon, it seems
to have been common. But deception cannot completely explain Peisis-
tratos success on the occasion, and in fact Herodotos contradicts his own
account, where he notes that the Athenians were mindful of Peisistratos
impressive public record when they voted him korune
phoroi.The decep-
tion story of Herodotos is in fact undermined in specics by what
Herodotos himself later supplies.
50
Finally, when Peisistratos was driven
from the tyranny, ostensibly by Megakles and Lykourgos acting in concert,
and then sought to return, he had once more to gain popular approval for
resuming the tyranny. Not only does the fact of Peisistratos later chariot
ride with Phye demonstrate his need for the de
mos.
54
For their role in the Kylonian sphage
, the fore-
bears of Megakles and the Alkmeonid genos were permanently alienated
; r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
from the Athenian aristocracyand one would have imagined, from
Athensall before ooo i.c.r.
55
In a surprisingly short time, however,
Megakles, the son of Alkmeon and grandson of the archon Megakles, is
not only discovered to be back in Athens but he is a leading politician
whose properties and prospects were bright enough by the ;os (proba-
bly at the latest) to have earned for him the hand of Agariste, daughter of
Kleisthenes, tyrant of Sikyon.
56
How did this remarkable change of for-
tune come about?
In light of the established context for sixth-century Athenian politics,
the salient fact attaching to the exiled Alkmeonidai after the Kylonian
slaughter, that they had become fabulously wealthy while away from
Athens, explains both their return to Athens and Megakles leadership of
the de
mos was
greedy enough to overlook the Kylonian miasma and powerful enough
both to enable the genos return and to bae aristocratic disapproval of
or attacks on the exiles; Megakles alone appears to have been capable of
sustaining the de
mata.
Although the aristoi may have objected strenuously to the return of the
Alkmeonidai, the de
mos
at some point, we know very well: Megakles genos was associated
with the de
ne
mos before it could be made good, so that in fact Megakles and the
Athenian de
ne
ne
ne
mos
never belonged to the tyrants, the Alkmeonidai, or any politician, its
changeability evident in precipitate expulsions and recalls at the end of
the sixth century (and thereafter). The de
mos adherence to
any politician (aside, perhaps, from their occasional patriotic appeals, such
as during the Kylonian affair and after Solons exhortations involving
Salamis); it was, quite clearly, no party at all.The Solonian de
mos.
This brings us round to Peisistratos party of those beyond the hill,
which, as Andrewes so aptly understated, gives more trouble.
64
Herodotos implies that Peisistratos mustered his third party because he was
barred from establishing a city constituency but more because he had no
ostensible city support.The very name of the Herodotean party, oi u ar-
o xioi, alludes to its rural nature and contributes to the impression of its
alienness from the city and city politics.
65
The problems begin precisely
here, for complementing that of explaining what effect a newly formed,
country-based party could have had on city politics long played out in the
asty and dominated by established city-centered constituencies and politi-
cians are a number of others.
66
First of all, on Herodotos testimony, we
must actually believe that Peisistratos, who had no ostensible support in
Athens, nevertheless entered the veritable den of his enemies, accused
them before their constituents of trying to kill him, and then received from
those constituents what he had asked for, namely, the means to subdue
them all! Not only did the astoi vote Peisistratos a bodyguard, an outcome
that demonstrates that he had city support in fact and casts suspicion on
Herodotos implication of outsider status, but they also appointed them-
selves to be his bodyguards and so helped to establish the tyranny.
67
As
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance +
mentioned above, the beyond-the-hillsmen, far from being indispensable
to the tyrant, inuential of, or even participant in the course of events, were
neither explicitly present on the crucial occasion of Peisistratos address to
the assembled astoi nor designated as bodyguards.
68
In fact, the hyper-
akrioi, like the other parties, constitute no appreciable political force what-
soever, disappearing altogether after their rst and only mention in
Herodotos.A political illogicality anyway in view of the long-standing po-
litical bilateralism indicated in Solon and actually (unwittingly?) seconded
by Herodotos and of Peisistratos necessity to make his case before the
astoi in Athens agora, the hyperakrioi are not only not dened by their
actions, but they amount to no more than a name in fact.
69
Small won-
der, indeed, that the third Herodotean party gives more trouble.
The utter dispensability of the phantom, indeed non-Solonian, third
party on the crucial occasion of Peisistratos rst bid for power, as well as
its inherent inconsequentiality in view of political dispositions in Athens,
highlights its irrelevancy and undermines its credibility. In fact, the fail-
ure of any of the Herodotean parties to play any part whatsoever in the
events leading up to the rst tyranny is not surprising, since, as such, they
are incompatible with Solonian political realities.The incompatibility and
other dissonances suggest that the parties scheme found in Herodotos was
unnaturally projected onto an uncongenial historical framework, some of
the contradictory outlines for which are in fact supplied by Herodotos
himself. In other words, the Herodotean parties are a ction.
. +nr nrroio+r:x cox+rx+
ror +nr r:r+i rs
The theme of the tyrannys inevitability, predicated on Peisistratos divine
sponsorship and surpassing cleverness, pervades Herodotos logos on Pei-
sistratos rise to power.The theme and revisions amount to an (obviously
imperfect) apology, their aim to deect blame from the Athenians for the
evidently essential part they played in enabling Peisistratos rst two tyran-
nies and for abiding the tyranny once established. The need for such an
apology was of course created by the necessity in the fth century to dis-
own the veritable partnership of de
mos
among others. Concealed to begin with by Herodotos introduction of
regional/personal parties, the de
ri-
moi of trying to kill him is possible, even as Solons famous mad recita-
tion of Salamis is possible.
73
However, that the Athenians were so
completely taken in by Peisistratos on this occasion is very dicult to accept,
even on Herodotos testimony. They were by no means political neo-
phytes or so naive when Peisistratos appeared on the scene, having been
regularly involved in political affairs from at least the Kylonian crisis.Then
again, Solon had amply warned the Athenians of impending tyranny in
his public statements.
74
Those warnings and their own political experi-
ence suggest that the Athenians knew what Peisistratos was up to when
he made his case before them.
More to the point, Herodotos passing mention of the Athenians high
regard for Peisistratos because of the part he played in the Megarian war
implies that his military success was topical at the time of the assemblys
decision and that the Athenians had made it with some consideration
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance
rather than emotionally, as Herodotos purports. But, as we have seen, pop-
ularity was not enough, and Peisistratos must have employed chre
mata,
whether actually or promising to do so, to woo the de
mos.Yet, regardless
of what Peisistratos said in the assembly or what the de
mos thought of
him, he could not have promised and then supplied the de
mos sucient
chre
phoroi.
The unattering characterization of the de
mos leader
in any case, he can hardly have been in a stronger position before his rst
bid for power and so must have relied then on the wealthy, politically cyn-
ical Megakles. In Herodotos account, the de
mos
as that supporter. Just as he would do later, Megakles threw his support
to Peisistratos in an effort to overcome his rival, Lykourgos, the son of
Aristolades, and thus to advance his own political agenda. He may have
even invited Peisistratos to become tyrant, since in his case the Kylonian
pollution apparently constituted an insuperable obstacle to his own ad-
vancement to it.There is, of course, no information in Herodotos about
who approached whom, but of the two Megakles was politically more
experienced and astute and it is fair to assume that he saw a chance in
Peisistratos to capitalize on the latters renown and to make headway
against Lykourgos, even as he would do later. Megakles invited Peisistratos
to take a second tyranny, indicating his necessary participation in any
restoration, and he surely had no less power before Peisistratos came to
be tyrant the rst time. Peisistratos was a good candidate for tyrant: war
hero, unpolluted, capable, and widely popular. He was, in short, what
Megakles was not. On the other hand, Peisistratos was neither wealthy
nor politically established within Athens: he did not have the means to
turn his qualities to prot by himself. Megakles did.As it was for the sec-
ond tyranny of Peisistratos, so it must have been for with the rst: Mega-
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance ,
kles was the necessary linchpin. His ability to make and unmake the tyrant
is evident in Herodotos.The two, Megakles and Peisistratos, worked to-
gether symbiotically for a short time.
Thus shortly before or even during the archonship of Komeas (o+oo
i.c.r.), Peisistratos and Megakles reached an accord whereby Peisistratos
would seek the tyranny and Megakles would support him. To that end,
for his part, Megakles would help to persuade the de
mos, endeavoring to
encourage it to assent to the tyranny. His partisans would prepare the
crowd in the agora to receive favorably Peisistratos actual plea for what
he required, and, along with verbal encouragement, the requisite chre
mata
could be supplied to sweeten the de
mos in
order to obtain power: even the lawgiver himself made promises that he
did not keep. Peisistratos verbal deception may have been matched by
physical deception, but in any case we must imagine that the Athenians
saw gain for themselves in Peisistratos tyranny and it would come as no
surprise if he promised them just that. Of course, Peisistratos popularity
made it easier for them to succumb to the persuasion, as Herodotos sug-
gests, many having some memory of his deeds in the Megarian war if they
did not actually serve in it themselves. Happily deceived by Peisistratos
promises, plied by Megakles agents, favorably inclined toward Peisistratos
for his war record anyway, and perhaps taken in by the power of his ora-
tory on the occasionPeisistratos must have been a creditable speaker at
leastthe de
phoroi)
Herodotos says (+.,.) that, when Peisistratos took the akropolis and es-
tablished his tyranny, he did so in the company of korune
phoroi, club-
bearers, who had been voted for him from among the Athenians by the
de
mos to Kylons
seizure of it before Peisistratos and Isagoras and Kleomenes seizure of it
afterward.The Athenians were sharply reactive to those they deemed to
be unworthy of such occupancy.
94
We should also not forget that the akropolis was essentially indefen-
sible over time: it was certainly no place to resist a serious siege.Though,
again, Kylon and Kleomenes took and held the place with considerable
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance ,
force, neither could hold out for any length of time, both capitulating to
besiegers really after only a few days.
95
Clearly, those allowed on the
akropolis were permitted to be there by the Athenians living below it. On
the basis of the Athenians sensitivity about the high cityand who should
and should not be on it, because Peisistratos would enjoy no real advan-
tage dwelling there, and because Peisistratos did in fact court Athenian
public favor, it seems unlikely that he actually lived on the akropolis day
to day.There was no need, after all, once the Athenians had voted him the
tyranny, but much was to be gained by settling in unobtrusively among the
Athenians in the asty (and by that I do not mean in Building F.)
96
There is yet one more indication. Occupying the akropolis could be
construed as a truly despotic act, comparable to the occupations by Kylon
and Isagoras. In effect, Peisistratos would have controlled what belonged
to all Athenians.That would have redounded upon him because it could
be construed as illegal.
97
We have no such indication in any source, al-
though there are the counterindications of such an act. Peisistratos did
not change any of the ancestral laws, [but] managed the city according
to the existing customs, ordering things up fairly and well.
98
Any who
argue for his residency on the akropolis would have to explain such coun-
terindications.
99
Thus, from what we may know of Athenian sensibilities,
on balance it seems unlikely that Peisistratos lived atop the Acropolis in
a mansion or a palace, protected by the old Mycenaean fortication wall
and by bodyguards and mercenaries who had their barracks on the sum-
mit nearby.
100
Such a pronouncement is an anachronism and disregards
both evidence and context for the period of the tyranny.
Since the akropolis was indefensible over time and those who took it
must come down at length, we may think that its seizurewas but a tem-
porary and symbolic gesture, indicating the favor of the gods and the
Athenians. Success or failure depended on how the Athenians reacted. In
the cases of Kylon and Isagoras, that reaction was unfavorable; in the case
of Peisistratos, the Athenians allowed it, we do not know for how long,
but they ended his rst two tyrannies by withdrawing their favor and, of
course, any control he might have exercised over the akropolis. While
there was most surely a sense among the Athenians that Athena must
favor the one who would be taken to her city (viz., Peisistratos), that
favor could only be obtained through them. Force really had nothing to
do with it (cf. section .B). Peisistratos presence on the akropolis should
then have been intermittent, not continuous, perhaps to sacrice the sac-
rices of the city as needed.
, r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
This brings us to the related topic of the korune
mos of the
Athenians were deceived and chose and gave to him [sc. Peisistratos] men
from the city who were not his spear-bearers (doryphoroi) but his club-
bearers (korune
phoroi and
Herodotos apparent discomfort with them are highlighted even by his
tautologous description of them and their actions: these are clearly not
the usual bodyguards of a tyrant, the doryphoroi.
102
There is further reason to consider the korune
phoroi instead of
doryphoroi qualied them as nontraditional bodyguards and presumably
helped to occlude the memory of those who accompanied Peisistratos.
In Herodotos, these were city-men who had accompanied him in his rst
ascent of the akropolis.
106
Peisistratos, who was popular with the de
srcoxi +.r:xx.
A. Introduction
According to Herodotos (+.oo.+), almost immediately after he had
united with Lykourgos to expel Peisistratos, Megakles broke with him
and presented Peisistratos with a proposition. If Peisistratos would marry
his daughter, Megakles would help restore him to the tyranny at Athens.
Together they devised yet another strategy, devolving upon what, accord-
ing to Herodotos, was ludicrous and unbelievable in fact. A young girl
from the deme of Paiania, Phye by name,tall and handsomeand dressed
as Athena, rode in a chariot with Peisistratos back to Athens. Messengers
(one presumes Megakles) who had been sent ahead primed the crowd
to receive the pair, saying Here is Athena leading back her favored one
to her own high city. The Athenians, according to Herodotos, were
, r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
taken in by the show and welcomed (and even prayed to) Peisistratos
and Phye-as-Athena. By their acclamation and permission to hold the
akropolis again, they restored Peisistratos to the tyranny. Herodotos terms
the latter episode the silliest thing he had ever heard of.
117
Herodotos subsequently recounts the consequences of Peisistratos
marriage to Megakles daughter. Peisistratos,already having children and
the Alkmeonidai being accursed, did not want to have children with his
newly-wedded wife.He did not therefore consummate the marriage, but
had sex with the girl ou xoto voov.The girl, not completely naive about
such thingsif she was naive, she would presumably not have known that
anything was amisshid this at rst, but then related it at length to her
mother,whether her mother asked her or not. Mother, in turn, told fa-
ther and this was the beginning of the end of the second tyranny.Wroth
because of the insult to himselfand, of course, the nullication of the
allianceMegakles united with his former antagonist Lykourgos and
drove Peisistratos once again from the tyranny.
118
We need not doubt that Megakles and Peisistratos combined for a sec-
ond tyranny, even as they had before, for each was proven incapable of
furthering his agenda at Athens without the other. Megakles political de-
pendence on Peisistratos is conrmed by his need to restore him to the
tyranny. Of course, Megakles was indispensable to Peisistratos as well, for
he was unable on his own to obtain or retain the tyranny. Neither could
establish the tyranny (obviously at Lykourgos expense) without the other
at this stage of things, both required the de
mata was
acknowledged by all. All three, the de
)
took place and so cannot know how the pageant is to be construed among
the political manoeuvres of Peisistratos and his colleagues.
Blok, who offers an interpretation anyway in spite of the impediments
she lists, overstates the seriousness of these. First of all, whether or not the
ancient authors believed it and whatever they reported about it, the Phye
pageant happened and we can only construe it on the basis of what we
have in the context of Athens at the time of the second tyranny.
125
Second, for that reason, it matters very little that there are no contempo-
rary comparanda.We need not, indeed we must not, consider the pageant
as generic but unique, even as Herodotos indicates it was. Finally, for the
timing of the pompe
, the
chariot, its charioteers, and the outrunning criers in context amounted
to explicit and implicit persuasion, vividly expressed yet subtly combined.
Peisistratos attributes and successes and the purport of their benet were
envivied by a corporeal Athena recommending her clear favorite: the
two became, for the moment, identical, as did the prognosis for Athens
well-being under Peisistratos.
140
As she loved the tyrant, so should the
Atheniansand for the reasons that she simultaneously recollected, rep-
resented, and urged.
Peisistratos was neither Herakles, Diomedes, nor Odysseus; his image
with Athena was his own, manufactured from parts supplied from mythi-
cal referents but nuanced to contemporary Athenian sensibilities.These,
but most of all who Peisistratos had become to the Athenians, created a vo-
cabulary of images summed up in his ride with Athena by Athena.The
vision, really a coup de thtre, had, like so many Attic vase paintings of
the sixth century, both obvious and subtler sense.
141
There is really no
question that the Athenians believed that Phye was the goddess Athena:
they did not. (The demonstrators of emotion and excess were surely
Megakles hacks.) The Athenians could, however, accept what Phye-as-
Athena represented, even as they could an actor playing Athena in
Sophokles Aias in the fth century. It was not the ruse that the Atheni-
ans accepted but the power and will of the divinity jointly represented in
Peisistratos and his record and in the representation of the goddess driv-
ing together with him in a chariot toward the high city.
142
The prog-
Money, Persuasion, and Alliance +o
nosis for the city was good so long as both pairs of handsthe hands that
held onto the chariot and its reinswere held out over Athens. Simply
put, Herodotos and his source(s) didnt get it, or more likely they ma-
ligned it in order to malign the de
mos.
Who voted this day that Peisistratos be tyrant once again? We may
eliminate rst of all the aristoi, who once again were surely mere by-
standers to the signicant events that occurred around them when Pei-
sistratos and Megakles combined forces.
143
Of the other two groups,
those whose loyalties lay specically with Megakles or Peisistratos were
surely the minority.Those who were interested in gain, who needed per-
suasion, the swing vote, which formed the critical mass, that is, the
Solonian de
mos, were the majority for whom the pageant was intended
as a persuasion.Their assent in sucient numbers was absolutely vital to
the success of the plan.This group had been rst persuaded by Peisistratos,
then Megakles, then Peisistratos and Megakles, and would be persuaded
by Megakles again. Perhaps most in it were inclined to reinstate Peisis-
tratos anyway, but they were certainly better primed after the pageant
and, we imagine, the further jingling of Megakles purse.We do not know
the precise numbers of these assenters, but theirs were the votes that
counted for the reestablishment of the tyranny.
In sum, the Athenians who received Peisistratos back were not
so simpleminded as Herodotos and his Athenian source(s) imply. In fact,
if anything, events at Athens beginning before Solon and in the years
preceding Peisistratos rst tyranny created conditions that would have
driven up the level of the de
ne
ne
mos co-
operated, as they must have done in the rst instance, to acclaim Peisis-
tratos. In this case, the Alkmeonid was the indispensable architect and
engineer of Peisistratos reinstatement. In Herodotos, Megakles promise
to Peisistratos appears to be guaranteed: the reactions of those who most
mattered politically in Athens, the de
mos.
On the basis of Megakles prior and subsequent activities and impor-
tance and the political entrenchment it implies, it is beyond possibility to
think that Megakles was, as he seems to have been in Herodotos account,
away from the action before, during, or after the Phye-as-Athena pageant.
He concocted it after all; it was upon this that the political fortunes of
both Megakles and Peisistratos were to depend. Megakles certain means
of inuence of the de
mos wanted
it, and Peisistratos really had nothing yet with which to compete.Thus, if
Peisistratos lacked the means to bid for the tyranny on his own in the sec-
ond instance, if he had to rely on the established city politician Megakles
as his go-between, then he cannot possibly have been in a stronger po-
sition before his rst bid or had any option other than reliance on the
wealthy, politically cynical Megakles. As Megakles was indispensable to
Peisistratos second tyranny, as leader of the de
mos, and the rst tyranny and in extenso allowed him to be thought
of more as a consistent opponent of tyranny and less as a collaborator.
Although he engineered the second tyrannyit was on his initiative
that things got under way in the rst placehe is also detached from
the silliness nally affecting the de
ne
when he had
cleared the political eld for himself. In fact, his stature was diminished
even from that which he had achieved through his victory at Nisaia.
During the rst two tyrannies, Peisistratos had not yet solved the po-
litical dilemma confronting leaders of the de
mos consent was vital; its favor could only be temporarily guaranteed
by a combination of wealth and popularity.The problem was to maintain
both, that is, ongoing popularity and distribution of wealth, and was
nally solved by Peisistratos after Palle
ne
mata was
key, as it always had been; further popularity could be gained by it, but
power could only be maintained by regular deployment of it.The tyranny
++ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
at Athens was in fact sustained by the distribution of wealth accumulated
in his exile but also by promises of more. Peisistratos had grasped that con-
stant supplies of chre
ne
los founding.
9
For their part, the Eretrians were undoubtedly hospitable but certainly
canny.They knew that Peisistratos was an experienced and successful eld
commander and that he had been a ruler at Athens. He would function
well for them in the north in the shorter run (and, perhaps even in the
longer run, as restored tyrant of Athens). Now without a base, Peisistratos
was surely amenable to becoming leader of a settlement in Thrace on be-
half of the Eretrians, for he must acquire wealth to restore his position at
Athens.
10
The result was a symbiosis of mutual protability.
Peisistratos prime incentive for heading up such a settlement must
have been immediate prot, for he did not intend to carve out a new
principality for himself in the north. As Solon indicates in his poetry,
chre
mos of Athens
and the de
s tou de
los was a way station for Peisistratos, who abandoned the settle-
++ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
ment altogether when he and those around him moved on to the Strymon.
There was no attempt to retain the place as a Peisistratid possession and
certainly none later to resettle it. Similarly, the settlement on the Strymon
was evacuated at the end of Peisistratos exile and never revived by the
tyrants.
12
The Thracian sites established by Peisistratos and his party were
temporary and purposed for limited aims.They were not colonies to be
held as independent possessions over time.These settlements, strongholds
or forts (i.e., teivch), were really just defensible depots for storing securely
the wealth Peisistratos required to regain the tyranny.
13
Peisistratos activ-
ities in the north enriched him to be sure, but they did not make him
fabulously wealthy.The Thracian settlements were disposable: gains made
and their purposes met, the Peisistratids left them behind to pursue the
ultimate prize of Athens.
14
B. Rhaike
los
+. Location of the Peisistratid Settlement
The site of Rhaike
. Rhaike
, then Mende
on Cape Poseidonion on
the Palle
ne
Peninsula.
17
Eretrians, either from the city itself or the Ther-
maic Gulf colonies, would have joined Peisistratos and his company in set-
tling Rhaike
los: they had long been present in the area and were knowl-
edgeable of the best ways to found, maintain, and see the new settlement
through.
18
Since the site was obviously advantageous for them, some of
the original Eretrian settlers of Rhaike
. Methone
, like Mende
lans were about was toll taking from passing ships, that is to
say, extortion or, in essence, piracy. If such were the case, then Rhaike
los
had to have provided a site where ships could lie up and be launched
quickly, as well as fortied, for surely it was both a redoubt and a depos-
itory for the proceeds from such trade.
21
(We should also rule in ship-
borne raiding against unfriendlies,along the lines of that practiced dur-
ing the Megarian war: cf. chapter II..C.) Such activities naturally entailed
hostage taking and slave trading, as well as simple robbery or extortion.
All of these are age-old activities of ancient Greek mariners.
The inhabitants of Rhaike
, Rhaike
ne
and
back. (Such settlements, astride land and sea routes, are in fact a hallmark
of later Peisistratid colonialism.)
22
One of the commodities exchanged at
Rhaike
.
23
+:o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
The Tide of Wealth and Power +:+
Rhaike
los may have been a necessary rst stop for Peisistratos on the
way to the Strymon. He and his party could acclimatize there, gaining ex-
perience with Thracians before moving on to the richer but much more
dicult country around Mount Pangaion. The Thracians near the Stry-
mon were renowned even among Thracians, a warrior people themselves,
for their warlike propensities.
24
Rhaike
tos
On the slender evidence we possess, Peisistratos was the leader of the en-
terprise at Rhaike
los as a profes-
sional soldier; the suggestion has been linked to archaeological data from
Sindos on the north coast of the Thermaic Gulf near the Axios River.
27
Roughly contemporary grave goods from Sindos, rich in gold, seem to
indicate that the Thracians there possessed abundant wealth. When the
Paionians, another Thracian tribe, began to expand and encroach on these
rich Sindians, Peisistratos appeared on the scene to act as a military ad-
viser, a mercenary commander in fact. Rhaike
coxr:x. :+ rn:i kr
ios
Precisely who went out to Rhaike
se, a
vital region for the tyrants after it was taken again by Peisistratos, would
be better explained if some of them had served at Rhaike
se, according to
Herodotos (o.o), because the natives there were looking for a war
leader. Miltiades (III), the oikiste
s of the Chersone
se, becom-
ing tyrants in their own right there.They may well have learned a thing
or two militarily about the Thracians at Rhaike
se.
35
The Tide of Wealth and Power +:
While the size of the party at Rhaike
se over
which Miltiades and his forebears held sway were larger, permanent, and
supported by Athens: there will have been sizable numbers of Athenians
there. Rhaike
se, the lengthiness of the Athenian occupation there, and the size of
Miltiades operationthe tyrant controlled the entire peninsulahis
hard core was apparently composed of only ve hundred ghters,
his genos, and his philoi, perhaps under a thousand all told.
Peisistratos Athenian band at Rhaike
los and on the Strymon, attracted some native Thracians, who, like
Tokes of Eion, came over to the Greeks, increased the numbers of those
on site, and actually fought for them.
39
These may or may not have been
assimilated into the Peisistratid party.
Whatever its size, in view of adverse conditions in Thrace, the existence
of, in particular, the Strymon settlement over time and the fact that Pei-
+: r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
sistratos actually got hold of at least some of the wealth of that hostile re-
gion attest to the remarkable nature of the group and its leader above all.
The Rhaike
los and Strymon settlers must have had, among other quali-
ties, determination, toughness, and courage.Yet, perhaps above all else, like
their leader they possessed surpassing greed and ambition. (Here, in order
to index the achievement of Peisistratos, it is opportune to recall the rapid
failure of Aristagoras of Miletos at Myrkinos and the massacre later of the
entire Athenian myriad at Drabeskos: cf. section +.C.+).And yet for all his
exertionand we must imagine that Peisistratos and no other was the real
driving force behind the enterprisethe erstwhile tyrant did not come
away from Rhaike
ne
los and the Strymon settlement seem to have become the pro-
totypes for others that Peisistratos, his genos, and the Philaids settled later.
Sigeion and the colonies of the Thracian Chersone
ne
ne
ne
n
were apparently transported down to the emporion and then the sea. It
is possible that closer control of these routes is what Histiaios desired in
advancing to Myrkinos, a site in many ways markedly inferior to Ennea
Hodoi/Amphipolis.
79
Myrkinos was perhaps envisioned by him as a toll
or trading station, but it was surely its connection to Pangaion mines that
lured Histiaios to it: indeed, in advancing closer to the sources of the met-
als, Histiaios anticipated the movement inland of the Athenians to
Drabeskos in o i.c.r. The success or failure of Histiaios enterprise de-
pended entirely on his abilities and military effectiveness.The Milesians
endeavors in the Strymon country temporarily ceased, however, when he
was recalled by Dareios to Sousa after an alarm was sounded by
Megabazos. Aristagoras, his successor, who came out during the Ionian
rebellion of the early fth century, was killed with all his men as they were
battling to expand their holdings, with a view to the Pangaion mines.
With his death, the Milesian initiative in the region came to an end.
80
(We note, as Thucydides does, a hiatus, too, in the Athenians efforts to
colonize Ennea Hodoi after the Drabeskos disaster.)
Peisistratos enterprise on the Strymon may be compared to this but
with some adjustment. First of all, we may accept that the enterprise de-
pended on Peisistratos and his ghting capacities, as it did for Histiaios,
Aristagoras, and even Hagnon. In each case, a war leader was the focus of
the undertaking: it was on him that success or failure devolved. As we
have witnessed, force and violence are implicit in the Pangaion region
and Peisistratos military skills were obviously indispensable to the settle-
ment and its operation. Any attempted exploitation of the area implied
ghting. Peisistratos would have been called on to lead the company and
defend the settlement against hostiles, some of whom may have been
Greek, as well as head up the moneymaking ventures, trade, extortion,
and the like.
As with Histiaios, it is to be presumed that the Peisistratos rst act was
to fortify the settlement.The lack of archaeological remains from the area
for the period approximate to Peisistratos occupation of the place supports
the notion that the settlement was small and built for temporary occu-
pancy. The same holds for the still unlocated Rhaike
los surely provides the best model for its successor on the Stry-
mon.The latter would have been primarily a stronghold, controlling at
least some surrounding land (between Amphipolis and Eion?) for the
agricultural support of the settlers. It would have been used as a castle
for the defense of the Peisistratids and their company (like Histiaios
teichos), a sallying point from which to venture out along the routes
traversing the country to extort tolls, an emporion (or the command of
one) where precious metals were exchanged for Greek goods (conveyed
by Eretrians?),
82
and a fortied treasure house (or strongbox) where
the accumulated prots were stored and protected.
83
As Rhaike
los,
Sigeion and the later Chersone
se. Kleidemos
reference to the marriage of Hipparchos to Phye and that of the Ath.
Pol. to the Thracian ower girl Phye are certainly garbled, but they
might amount to an oblique reference to a marriage between one or an-
other of Peisistratos sons to the daughter of a local Thracian notable.
85
One imagines that the benets of such marriages would help to reduce
hostilities and increase revenues. Those were certainly two of Miltiades
aims in the Chersone
se.
5. Summary
If, as seems most likely, return to Athens was the goal of the enterprise on
the Strymon, Peisistratos and his party would have abided in Thrace only
long enough to acquire the amount of wealth necessary to convince
others (most importantly, perhaps, the Eretrians) of his success. Gains were
hard won here, and it may have taken the Peisistratids many years to ac-
quire even what appears to have been the minimum to effect their plans
for return.
86
The years in Thrace cannot have been happy ones for the
exiles, who may well have sought to shorten their stay there by extraor-
dinary means (e.g., more frequent and riskier raids). Perhaps one result of
the Thracian sojourn was the hardening of the Peisistratids as ghters due
to the climate and the interminable ghting in Thrace. Indeed, their su-
perior conditioning may have had much to do with the rout of Palle
ne
.
When the Peisistratids departed Thrace for Athens, they abandoned the
Strymon country altogether and never looked back. Like Miltiades from
the Chersone
se, Peisistratos apparently quit the region with all his philoi.
According to AP, Peisistratos hired some troops in Thrace, but the au-
thor is likely to be presuming, after Herodotos lead, that Thracians were
hired by the tyrant because Peisistratos had been in Thrace and because
Thracians were renowned as mercenaries from the time of the Pelopon-
nesian war.
87
On the other hand, if there were intermarriages during the
Thracian sojourn it is reasonable that the Athenians Thracian in-laws
contributed ghters for Peisistratos restoration to the tyranny at Athens.
(Of course, there is no record of any of Peisistratid marriage in Thrace or
with Thracians.) Moreover, the archaeological record of the lower Stry-
mon region suggests the presence there of defecting Thracians, such as
Tokes of Eion, who appear to have become hellenized.
88
The Thracians
were very good ghters, and Peisistratos could have taken some with him
rst to Eretria and then to Athens either as retainers or hirelings. These
should not be thought of as mercenaries, however, a term that implies at
least some professional coherence and discipline, or as constituting any
considerable number.We note that Thracians do not gure in Herodotos
Catalogueof allies (and others) attending Peisistratos before Palle
ne
, and
that may be signicant of their inconsiderable numbers.
89
:. +nr r:iir
xr
c:xr:i tx
A. Preliminaries: Eretria
+. Koisyra and the Eretrian Hippeis
Peisistratos special relationship with the Eretrians, who harbored him af-
ter his ight from Attika, seems to have continued through the entire
period of his second exile. It was really quite extraordinary.When Peisis-
tratos arrived in Eretria, he was countryless, impoverished, and without
any real prospects. In such straits, the Eretrians were remarkably hos-
pitable, cooperative, and actually fundamental to his rejuvenation. In a
+ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
very real sense, without their assistance Peisistratos would have had no
chance to return to Athens. Eretria became the base for the buildup of
forces before the invasion of Attika. Not only did the Eretrians sanction
that buildup, but they contributed to it, becoming ghting allies of Pei-
sistratos.The aid rendered Peisistratos by the Eretrians was truly outstand-
ing and suggests some special tie to him.
An explanation for such extraordinary relations and Eretrias generous
support at the end of Peisistratos exile is to be found in the scholion ad
Nubes . Here it is said that one Koisyra, a woman from Eretria, married
Peisistratos when he attempted to rule as tyrant.
90
According to other
scholia about her, this Koisyra became synonymous among the Atheni-
ans with wealth, luxurious living, and thinking big (mevga fronei`n),
terms regularly attached to tyrants and tyrannical behavior.
91
On appear-
ances, the Eretrian Koisyra haled from a noble, wealthy, and presumably
high-ranking Eretrian house. In view of her status, her kinsmen would
not have xed on a husband for her unless he had what they considered
rather bright prospects. If what is said about her in our sources is true, she
would not have had it otherwise.
This scholion is admittedly quite late, but it should nevertheless be ac-
cepted as preserving at least some valid information. Such scholia to
Aristophanes comedies frequently contain good evidence, some of
which, as here, may have been drawn ultimately from an Atthis. It is in
any case dicult to imagine how the information about this otherwise
obscure personage could have been invented.
92
In fact, we have evidence
of an Athenian Koisyra who, on an ostraka cast apparently in ; i.c.r.,
was accused of high living.The accusation can hardly have been coin-
cidental. It appears that this Athenian Koisyra was related to, and actually
a namesake of, the Eretrian one who married Peisistratos when he at-
tempted to rule as tyrant.
93
If the wording of the scholion is accurate,
it rules out the possibility that the marriage could have occurred while
Peisistratos was tyrant, that is, during his second or third tyranny. Rather,
it had to have taken place in one of the periods of exile.We have seen that
Peisistratos was likely married to Timonassa during his rst exile and
through his second tyranny; he was away in the north for much of his last
exile.The most probable time for the marriage arrangement to have oc-
curred was toward the end of his second exile, when we know that he
was basing himself in Eretria (see appendix C.:).
Peisistratos fortunes and prospects were really at their lowest ebb upon
arrival at Eretria from Attika; they were not much better when he was
The Tide of Wealth and Power +
away in Thrace.That period must have been a very trying one for Peisis-
tratos and his party. The settlements at Rhaike
ne
.
95
The Eretrians had favored Peisistratos
when they harbored him after his second exile and continued to do so
during the Thracian sojourn.They openly declared for him and his cause
on his return from the north. For the Eretrians, the notably high-main-
tenance Eretrian lady, and her family, Peisistratos looked a winner on his
return from Thrace, when donations kept coming in to help to restore
him to the tyranny at Athens.
The marriage alliance was surely just that and must have involved yet
another quid pro quo. Just as Peisistratos earlier marriage to Timonassa
had obtained for him a force of Argives to ght at Palle
ne
, so should the
marriage to Koisyra have entailed another such arrangement. She would
become the wife of the tyrant; her apparently well-connected family
would guarantee participation of the Eretrian hippeis in the actual cam-
paign leading to Palle
ne
.
96
Eretrias investment in Peisistratos and his en-
terprise became more substantial than it had ever been during Peisistratos
exile, as the Eretrians essentially declared war on the Athenians. Presum-
ably, for his part, as with Gorgilos of Argos, Peisistratos would bestow pat-
rimonies of some sort on offspring from the Eretrian union.
:. Lygdamis and Deeds before Palle
ne
ne
mata or both
were contributed by the Thebans, Lygdamis of Naxos, the Argives, and the
hippeis of Eretria.
99
Herodotos emphasizes that Lygdamis was especially
enthusiastic and that he furnished both wealth and men.
Although the interval after Thrace and before Palle
ne
might appear
brief, important events took place during it.The evidence for this is in-
direct. Herodotos says (+.o.:) that, after Palle
ne
, Peisistratos deposited
Athenian hostages with Lygdamis on Naxos, which Peisistratos had re-
duced in war and given over to him.
100
The implication of the testimony
of the Ath.Pol. (+.:) is, however, that the conquest of Naxos for Lyg-
damis occurred after Palle
ne
ne
ne
, Peisistratos efforts
on Lygdamis behalf might best be placed early after his return from the
north. Perhaps the campaign on Naxos was a dry run for Palle
ne
or
Peisistratos was simply exing and getting the kinks out of the military
musclehe and his confederates had added in the north.
105
In any event,
a quid pro quo better explains why Herodotos says that some were in-
debted to Peisistratos and why some of these contributed enthusiastically.
A further speculation: Peisistratos investment of time and resources at
Naxos may also signal the rst step in creating an Athenian presence in
the Aegean.
106
One of Peisistratos initial acts on regaining the tyranny
was to cleanse Delos, thus emphatically stating his and Athens interest
in the mid-Aegean (cf. appendix G). Naxos was one of the keys to the
Aegean: it was a rich and prosperous island with a sizable navy astride a
main east-west sea route. It was the object of the scheming of Aristago-
ras and Artaphernes before the Ionian revolt. It was taken and reduced
by the Persian eet on its way to Marathon in ,o i.c.r., and of course
+ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
the Athenians went to great lengths to return it to the Delian League once
it had defected.
107
Perhaps Peisistratos was looking ahead to the construc-
tion of a buffer for Athens and the Greek mainland against aggression,
especially after the Persians had arrived on the shores of Ionia in force.
108
The intervention on Naxos is to be coupled with the purication of
Delos, a short distance from it, as a further gesture implying Athens pres-
ence in the area. Peisistratos was demonstrating for the islandersand
the Atheniansthat Athens interests exceeded its own boundaries and the
Saronic Gulf. Whether or not Peisistratos external policies may be read
further into the Naxian campaign on behalf of Lygdamis, this gesture, to-
gether with the purication of Delos, informed the Greeks that Athens
further interests would henceforth be implicated with the Aegean.
B. Resources
+. The Catalogue of Allies
Of the many who offered a great amount of money, the Thebans surpassed
all in their donations. Afterward, to make a long story short, time passed
and they prepared all things for the return.The Argive hirelings arrived from
the Peloponnese and a Naxian, a volunteer for them, Lygdamis by name,
was very zealous and brought them both money and men. . . .While they
were bivouacked at Marathon, partisans from the city arrived and others
from the demes kept streaming in, who found tyranny more to their liking
than freedom.
109
Herodotos +.o+.o:.+
Although Herodotos purposefully overstates the massing of allies at
Eretria, Peisistratos appears nonetheless to have gathered to him as many
warriors as he could, presumably to ensure himself the best chances of
success.
110
(Of course, this, too, must be viewed as part of Peisistratos
strategy of return.) Notwithstanding the descriptions of the contingents
by Herodotos and AP, it is not easy to reckon the exact size of the army
that landed at Marathon.
111
If the thousandcontributed by the Argives
(Ath.Pol. +;.) is accurate and not simply a rounded number,
112
and if it
may be considered representative of the number of warriors supplied by
the Eretrians and the enthusiastic Lygdamis, then the forces of these
three together amounted to three thousand warriors.
113
Presumably, the
majority were hoplites. If there were additional contingents contributed
The Tide of Wealth and Power +,
by others not explicitly mentioned in Herodotos,
114
these were surely
smaller in comparison with those explicitly cited by the historians (viz.,
Lygdamis, the Eretrians, and the Argives). All of these, who, Herodotos
says, came from obligation or otherwise, did not serve for pay, since Pei-
sistratos was asking for contributions all the while and getting both men
and money from participants (cf. section :.B.:). Those who marshaled
with Peisistratos on Eretria were thus neither mercenaries nor paid pro-
fessionals, but regular warriors.
115
Added to these was the original hard
core of Peisistratos supporters who had come down with him from
Thrace, including perhaps some few Thracians, and still others from
Attika who may have joined him at Eretria.
116
These veterans of Rhaike
los
and the Strymon were by now both seasoned and coherent, having fought
together for years in Thrace.
The most heavily armed of Peisistratos forces at Eretria would thus
seem to have amounted to around four thousand altogethera formi-
dable force to be sure, which grew stronger upon its arrival at Marathon.
Herodotos says (+.o:.+) that defectors from the city joined Peisistratos
while he was encamped at Marathon and partisans from the countryside
kept streaming in.These defections were crucial for Peisistratos success
at Palle
ne
, for they not only swelled the numbers of his effectives but
also both depleted the Athenian numbers and diminished the will of the
Athenians to resist.
Not all of the Peisistratid forces at Palle
ne
ne
.
118
If Thra-
cians were present, they are likeliest to have been peltasts, swordsmen, or,
like Tokes, mounted warriors. These were surely not many but possibly
some few personal retainers of Peisistratos. Nevertheless, exotic in their
fox skins and paint and erce in ghting, these few Thracians could have
been used, quite literally, as shock troops to strike fear into the men of
the city,many of whom would probably never have beheld such barbaroi,
non-speakers of Greek.
119
(We think of how frightened the Greeks were
of the Persians and their outlandish garb before the battle of Marathon.)
+o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
It is impossible either to conrm or deny the presence of Thracians at
the battle of Palle
ne
ne
is con-
rmed by comparison of it with other military forces elded by the Athe-
nians.The entire Athenian muster sent to Marathon in ,o i.c.r. against
the Persians amounted to perhaps only nine thousand heavily armed
troops.
121
With the defections occurring at Marathon and later at Palle
ne
,
Peisistratos force would have amounted to more than half that, albeit not
entirely made up of hoplites. Any possible difference, however, was made
up in the quality of Peisistratos force, especially the hard core of his imme-
diate entourage. Exiles for nearly a decade, these ghters will have been
as determined to win home as Peisistratos was, if only to reestablish them-
selves and their fortunes in their own native land.
Peisistratos himself, however, victor in the Megarian war and success-
ful commander in Thrace and on Naxos, was once again the expeditions
driving force, commander, and soul. He possessed by now a very long
record of military successes, topped off by recent ones in the north and
perhaps elsewhere in Greece (e.g., Naxos): thus, he was even more for-
midable for the reputation that went before him. Talk among the men
of the citypreceding Palle
ne
ne
gos, Peisistratos
undoubtedly led the charge that routed the Athenians of the city.
The motifs of divine assistance in Herodotos are untrustworthy, but the
evidence of the operation implies that Peisistratos was the strategist and
tactician of the expedition. Assembling the force at Eretria, Peisistratos
brought it to land at Marathon presumably to attract defectors from the
mesogaia. The movements of the invading force from then on were de-
liberately slow, one imagines to ascertain Athenian reactions, to encour-
The Tide of Wealth and Power ++
age more defections, to undermine further the morale of the opposition,
and to keep Peisistratos foreign allies outside of the Athenian pale.With
the battle all but won and the tyranny restored (cf. section :.C.:), there
were politics to consider, and by now Peisistratos knew Athenian politics
very well (cf. section :.D).There was no good reason to bring foreigners
into the city itself, as Kylon had done and Isagoras was to do, but some
very compelling ones to keep them well away from it.
It appears that the Athenians who came to Palle
ne
ne
, may be construed
as part of the Herodotean apology of haplessness in the logos.The im-
plication is that the Athenians were overwhelmed by forces neither they
nor anybody else could reasonably withstand. The impression that the
ranks of the Athenians of the city were being constantly depleted by de-
fections increases the sense of helplessness of the heroic few who stood
rm and suffered the onslaught.The implied ineptitude of these, sleeping
or playing at draughts when the attack nally came, may well be only ap-
parent (cf. section :.C.+:).
:. Peisistratos Chre
mata before the battle, implying that these donations helped to pro-
duce its results; later, he alludes to chre
mata
was to help root the tyranny by providing funds for Peisistratos political
ends in the aftermath of the battle.
122
This is exactly what Herodotos says
happened.
Peisistratos overall strategy seems clear enough: he meant to dispose of
any hard core Athenian opposition, that is, the residue left after the de-
fections ceased, by means of his overwhelming force of allies. Peisistratos
may have used some of the chre
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
nis.
130
It is possible that, arriving earlier than Peisistratos, the Athe-
+ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
nians dug in at the temenos, perhaps behind a wall there, using it as a de-
fensive perimeter and strong point from which to face attack. The men
of the city were certainly in a defensive position ultimately, since, when
the battle was nally joined, it was they who were attacked and taken un-
awares.They seem to have stood down from their arms, perhaps trusting
too much to their only supercially superior position.
If the men of the city meant to bar the road into Athens, they had
adopted sound tactics. Defense suited those who could hope to outwait
Peisistratos.
131
Time was on their side, since Peisistratos, whose army was
composed mainly of allies, must act sooner rather than later and force the
issue. The allied troops would not remain with him indenitely. On the
other hand, if Peisistratos wanted to ensure himself the easiest victory and
avoid bloodshed, he must also bide his time and continue to encourage
defections. He seems thus to have been walking a kind of tightrope be-
tween prudent hesitation, governed by political and other concerns, and
the necessity of immediate attack dictated by the nature and condition of
his army.
The circumstances of the actual battle are suspicious even if we take
Herodotos account to be generally accurate. When the attack nally
came, the men of the city were caught seemingly unawares, some hav-
ing turned to their midday meals, some to gaming, and some to sleep. It
was in this condition that Peisistratos forces fell on and routed them.
132
This lack of vigilance around the time when the attack nally came
could be taken to indicate that the men of the city were overcondent
in their defensive position or possibly that they were betrayed (cf. sec-
tion :.D.+). The information, which seems to make the Athenian rank
and le appear foolish, shifts the blame for the apparent rout from their
leaders, ostensibly the Alkmeonidai. However, their foolishness is, in turn,
mitigated by the sense of Peisistratos divine sponsorship and the futility
of resistance (cf. section :.C.:).
Peisistratos inaction at Palle
ne
ne
in Fifth-Century Context:
Problems at Source
Herodotos account of the battleand, indeed, of the events leading up
to itportrays some Athenians as insouciant before the battle and others
as unconscious, at least at its beginning.The Athenians were caught at-
footed and routed. So precipitous is the ight depicted in Herodotos that
Peisistratos sent his sons ahead on horseback to overtake the fugitives as
they were running away to direct them cheerfully each to their homes.
Palle
ne
ne
, Herodotos
account of Peisistratos rise to power emphasizes the tyrants invincibility
and the Athenians hopelessness before him.That the Athenians at Palle
ne
ne
], thus indicating
that some of the men of the city put up a ght and died as a result.This
was not as easy a victory as Herodotos makes it out to be in the main ac-
count of the battle: Herodotos himself says so. However, reminding his
readers that the Athenians resisted is counterproductive for what
Herodotos, or his source(s), wants the reader (or listener) to come away
with, that is, that the battle was over well before it was fought.This is in
fact the theme governing the highlighted account from the outset of
the logos.The historians description of Palle
ne
ne
is
+o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
the seal of the gods sponsorship that guided Peisistratos to the tyranny.
135
Accordance with the supernatural theme of the entire logos explains
both the extent and content of Herodotos very brief, very selectively re-
ported account of the battle. The question is: what history do we have
here at all?
136
A variant account of battle by the Athenian orator Andokides adds to
the diculty of knowing exactly what transpired. It opposes Herodotos,
proclaiming the action at Palle
ne
no loss at all.
After the city had come into great evils, when the tyrants ruled the city and
the de
mos had ed, your forefathers were victorious ghting the tyrants at
Palle
ne
ne
ne
gos. From
what else we know about him, Leagoras was not old enough to have been
a general in o.
139
Second, reference to the de
mos is an acknowledg-
ment of the standard political and ideological polarity of fth-century
Athens: the de
mos, not the men of the city, oppose tyranny. This polar-
ity was certainly not in place during the sixth century at Athens. As we
have witnessed, the de
ne
, unless e[feuge is to
be taken as defected.)
140
Finally, Andokides says that some were killed,
some exiled, and some stripped of political rights, but allowed to remain
in the city.This sort of meted punishment is best assigned to tyrannical
types, not to deliverers of Athens: in fact, it reads as if the tyrants were en-
The Tide of Wealth and Power +;
trenched within Athens, not coming to attack from without. Finally,
to imply that some who remained in the city after the battle were made
atimoi (dishonored) is an impossibility in view of what we know of sixth-
century atimia (dishonor): those labeled as such could certainly not con-
tinue to abide in the city unmolested.This is clearly an anachronism.
141
Andokides account is thus not credible: he indicates no understanding
of where the battle occurred, who participated in it, or its outcome.
The salient fact for him is that the battle of Palle
ne
ne
,
magnied by prevailing negative attitudes toward the tyranny in fth-
century Athens. In Andokides account, the revisions seem designed
specically to benet the speaker by recasting his great-grandfather
as the active opponent of the tyrants.
142
Perhaps Andokides ancestors,
like the Alkmeonidai, had been tyrant supporters and this was an attempt
to cloud over their collaboration.The orator does acknowledge that his
ancestors could have married into the tyrants family.
143
(In the speech,
Andokides, who had been implicated with Alkibiades in the profana-
tion of the Mysteries [and so with one who was suspected of having
tyrannical aspirations], was attempting to show, by his reference to
Leagoras, that his tendencies were not by nature hybristic or impious,
and so sympathetic to tyranny, but antityrannical and so antihybristic.)
While Andokides account contains no evident historical data for the
battle of Palle
ne
ne
ne
as well as be-
fore it. Herodotos alludes to it before the battle, Peisistratos had the
+ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
wherewithal to effect it, and betrayal would have suited him, since he
could gain what he wanted with less trouble, risk, or bloodshed.Treach-
ery would explain the lack of vigilance of the Athenians opposing Peisis-
tratos, their swift and total defeat, and to some extent Andokides garbled
memory of it.
146
The rout, which we have no reason to doubt as fact,
147
is better explained if treason occurred on the battleeldperhaps simi-
lar to the famous shield signal of Marathon.
148
Memories of the defeat at Palle
ne
ne
is
brevity and vaguenessno glory for either side. In Andokides, the defeat
is made over completely into triumph: in fact, it becomes a victory of the
tyrants foes against the tyrant and his forces, the exact opposite of what
it was.There is falsity in both accounts, but it is most dicult to separate
out the truth in Herodotos.
. Toward Reconstruction
Although there are substantial problems with our sources, we may take
some things as secure. A battle at Palle
ne
ne
ne
(cf. section
The Tide of Wealth and Power +,
:.D.+), for Herodotos suggests that the cavalry did the mopping upper-
haps chasing the Athenians to their homes but more likely preparing the
path into the city for Peisistratos.
Whether or not, as Herodotos says, the Athenians were caught un-
awares, the men of the city were most likely outnumbered, undoubtedly
outclassed (especially by the hardened core of Peisistratos and his philoi),
and certainly demoralized. Defectors kept defecting; the invaders num-
bers were substantial to begin with but continued to grow.The Atheni-
ans also had to cope not only with the formidability of their opponents
and Peisistratos reputation, enhanced by his Thracian sojourn and mili-
tary triumphs as strate
mos.
Many ancient Greek battles were won or lost on morale, and the Athe-
nian men of the city, many of them, may not have understood exactly what
they were ghting for. (The signicant number of defections mentioned
could be taken as a sign of such confusion.) Treachery during or before
the battlegenerally suspected by soldiers when things arent going well
and many times conrmed in the battles aftermathwould have sapped
the last remnant of the will to resist. Many Athenians had cooperated
with Peisistratos before, and many would again: it is far from unlikely that,
gazing out over Peisistratos assembled host, some of men of the city saw
a chance for themselves by selling out to the tyrant before the battle. If
that is so, then these were likelier to be from among the higher echelons
of command.And, of course, the Alkmeonidai were not above selling out
to the Peisistratids on other occasions.
D. Aftermath
+. The End of the Campaign
Although it is not stated, it seems very likely that the canny Peisistratos
halted the foreign contingents outside of Athens, perhaps even as far away
as Palle
ne
.
150
It was a good place to end the campaign: Peisistratos did not
want to damage Athensthere was everything to lose by having it
harmedand he surely could not have helped his cause in the longer run
by letting in the foreign army.The allies could not have remained for any
length of time in any case, for they were not going to become an occu-
pation force.The battle won, it was opportune for Peisistratos to declare
+o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
all debts squared and to dismiss the allies with thanks on the doorstep of
the pale.We observe that there is no evidence complaining that Peisis-
tratos invaded Athens with foreign troops.
Thus far, hostilities had taken place well away from Athens, and techni-
cally Peisistratos and his retinue could not be formally charged with bring-
ing foreigners against the city or, for that matter, onto Atheniansoil. Re-
straint and magnanimity would win favor and popularity once more;
license, vengeance, and any repetition of a Kylonian-type occupation
would not. Peisistratos was renowned as a goodtyrant, and bloodshed in
the aftermath of Palle
ne
ne
ne
ne
.Whatever meas-
ures were actually taken in the short run had to have been limited in
scope, politically oriented, and, it appears, surgically performed.
153
This
is corroborated to some degree by Herodotos.
The Tide of Wealth and Power ++
Herodotos says explicitly (+.o.) that chief among the exiles were the
Alkmeonidai, ostensible leaders of the men of the city at Palle
ne
. Peisis-
tratos had good enough reason to banish at least some of the Alkmeonidai.
They had remained interposed between Peisistratos and the favor of the
de
ne
mos was desirable so that Peisistratos could take over their game: the
tyrant had spent years gathering chre
ne
mos,
and he was best able to do that if the Alkmeonidai were temporarily re-
moved from Athens.
If such exile were imposedand if Herodotos mention of it is not
merely part of yet another attempt to cover up some shady business of
the Alkmeonidsit was not perpetual. Perhaps Peisistratos exercised
clemency. Perhaps he believed that enough time had passed and that his
relationship with the de
ne
ne
.
159
Herodotos statement that the Alkmeonidai went into exile after Palle
ne
ne
and
perpetual opposition to the tyranny are completely false in any case and
undoubtedly evolved to bae recollections of the Alkmeonids historical
record of cooperation with the Peisistratids.
. Summary
From the nature of the expedition north, it appears that Peisistratos strat-
egy of return, a strategy that came to fruition in the campaign leading to
Palle
ne
, was in place from the time that Peisistratos set out for Thrace. In
fact, Peisistratos second coming with Phye could be taken as an indi-
cation that his resolve to remain tyrant of Athens was set from then at
least. Chre
mata and men would lead to victory and a rm footing for the
tyranny: it is the collection of resources after all, not the battle, that is
stressed repeatedly by Herodotos.These resources were obtained partially
in Thrace and partially from subscriptions taken by the tyrant on Euboia.
What is remarkable in all of this is Peisistratos dedication to return to
Athens and to tyranny. Ambition and greed would seem to be the pri-
mary driving forces, although political vanity is not to be excluded. (It
The Tide of Wealth and Power +
goes without saying that political personages with outsized condence,
egotism, and ambition make state and self-aggrandizement identical.) We
need not think, however inuenced we might be by Thucydides charac-
terization of Archaic Greek tyrants and their motives, that greed and am-
bition were completely unbridled. Rather, the historian says (+.+;) that
such tyrants were looking to their needs and those of their households,
and he says this with obvious reference to the Peisistratids.
162
Peisistratos must have been driven over the course of his exile by, among
other things, the vision of what Athens could be for himself but also for
the Athenians. A parallel course is in fact charted in the rooted tyranny.
What beneted the Peisistratids was extended to benet the Athenians, es-
pecially economically. It is this kind of partnership between the de
mos and
its leaders, one depicted as early as the poems of Solon, that Peisistratos in-
stitutionalized, and in fact it carried over into the democracy.
163
+ r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
V
Summary
+. +nr +nrrr rri xs or +nr
irxocr:+i c
+.r:x+
A. Fame and Popularity
Nisaia was the pivotal moment in Peisistratos early career; Palle
ne
estab-
lished the tyranny for several decades. Success in the Megarian war earned
Peisistratos popularity rst among the ghters in the eld and then more
generally among the Athenians. A slight index of the potency of the vic-
tory and what it produced for Peisistratos is the fact that the memory of
it survived even in the antityrannical climate of Athens in the fth cen-
tury i.c.r. The magnitude of Peisistratos war deeds was great indeed.
The victory at Nisaia, apparently the nal blow to the Megarians, ensured
Athens ascendance in the Saronic Gulf, its permanent dominion over
both Eleusis and Salamis, and its security against the Megarians. Phaleron
was safe from Megarian attack by sea and the Kephissian Plain and Athens
itself from land attack. Peisistratos thus brought to a close the one hundred
years of war with Megara and so demolished the barriers to Athenian ex-
pansion.Victory in the war also avenged the outrage of Kylons occupa-
tion of the akropolis with Megarian troops. The Athenians of the early
sixth century were surely enormously grateful to Peisistratos for ending
the war in Athens favor.
Peisistratos success indicates in fact that by the end of the war he had
become Athens most outstanding war leader. The operation leading to
Nisaia implies concerted strategy, while the action itself implies developed
+
`
tactics. These, too, are apparently to be credited to Peisistratos. Corrobo-
rating evidence of Peisistratos as strategist and tactician is to be found in
the record of the Palle
ne
gos in the war against Megara. Peisistratos seems to have grasped that
the desired outcome in the war could only come about gradually, after pre-
liminary steps had been taken and preliminary battles fought and won.The
same held true for his return to the tyranny. For that, Peisistratos prepared
for almost a decade, mustering the overwhelming force he needed to de-
liver the nal blow to his opponents and to establish the tyranny once for
all. He also understood that military force alone would not be sucient
on its own and so accumulated chre
mata
from his allies and assembling ever increasing numbers of warriors for his
army, that he struck at Athens.The result of his measures was the quick and
apparently easy victory at Palle
ne
goi of the time, Peisistratos will have led from the front. In
fact, given his experiences and successes, he must have been rather a skilled
warrior. Certainly, the Thracian enterprise suggests protracted ghting and
hard ghting at that in the Strymon region. Peisistratos was undoubtedly
the center of cohesion for his enterprise, the sole purpose of which was to
further his ambitions to return to Athens as tyrant.The Thracian sojourn
was a long one, and we must imagine years of tough ghting amid the
erce Thracians who guarded their interests around Mount Pangaion. It is
also reasonable to think that whatever group he had with him there be-
came hardened, even as he did. By the time they arrived at Palle
ne
, Peisis-
tratos and his philoi were probably at a ghting peak.
Whatever his military career in the north, it was the Megarian war that
earned Peisistratos fame and popularity among the Athenians. He had de-
feated an inveterate enemy in a great patriotic war, and his successes sub-
stantiated his claims of Neleid descent. (These I have urged he put forth
himself as part of a campaign rst for war leadership and then for the
tyranny.) The myths were not only corroborated by victory over the Megar-
ians but implied further success and security under Peisistratos leadership.
It seems reasonably certain that Peisistratos knew well the value of
drawing such links to the heroic age even at the earliest stage of his pub-
+o r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
Summary +;
lic career. Solon observes that the Athenians would listen gaping to
seductive speakers and foolishly be won over by them. In introducing the
Neleid link, Peisistratos was doing no more than employing myths to con-
vince the Athenians of his worth and right to govern them. Of course,
had there not been a Megarian war or had some other competent and
ambitious strate
ne
mata.
Political speakers promised it to the de
mos gain, but in its view he did not follow through on that
promise. Solons political eclipse followed, part of the evidence for which
are the apologies he made to the de
ne
and (so) what he could not do before that, obviously because of Mega-
kles and his chre
mata that remained after the battle, however, that Peisistratos would
have to locate other sources of wealth by which continuously to enrich
the appetitive Athenians.
In fact, chre
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
, Eretria
was secured as Peisistratos rst forward base, then Marathon. Palle
ne
then
seems to have become that, as Peisistratos also encamped there, receiving
even more defectors.The care taken in strategizing and what it produced
provided a further advertisement to the men of the city of Peisistratos
abilities, the consciousness about which was undoubtedly never com-
pletely absent from their minds. Thoughtfully conceived and well exe-
cuted, Peisistratos strategy outdid that of any leader or commander on
the other side. Even from what little Herodotos supplies of the campaign
leading up to the battle and the battle itself, the Athenians were out of
their depth.They had neither the warriors nor the commanders to resist
+oo r:xr, xoxr., :xi rovrr
Summary +o+
Peisistratos and his forces. We need not doubt that overawing the Athe-
nians was also part of Peisistratos strategy. (The Phye pageant was meant
to remind the Athenians of Athenas favoring of Peisistratos after all.)
The rout at Palle
ne
ne
ne
ne
mos and its wishes, he was in essence a democratic tyrant. And this
was not necessarily by design or temperament but rather due to politi-
cal necessity. It was the Athenians who made the conditions for ruling
them; Peisistratos simply met them.
:. rrrirc+i oxs or +nr si x+n-crx+ur.
irxocr:+i c rro+o+.rr i x irxocr:+i c :+nrxs
A. The Formula for Leadership
The line between legitimate rule and tyranny is, with allowances made
for those whose regard for these concepts is more microscopic, sometimes
little more than that between pride and more pride, ambition and further
ambition, between the discharge of power cloaked with a conventional
sense of propriety and restraint and the unconventional or perhaps sim-
ply less proper discharge of power. It is quite possibly the line between
the restrained and the rash.Tyrants were of course mostly the latter.
On the evidence, Peisistratos tyranny walked along and about that line.
He was labeled a tyrant but apparently did nothing to earn a charge of
transgressing the laws. The image we have of Peisistratos is of one who
was regarded by his contemporaries as possessing outstanding talents and
abilities. I have argued that Peisistratos could not have maintained his
tyranny, however those talents may have been regarded by the Athenians
of his time, unless the Athenians consented. Even had he possessed the
largest coercive force feasible with which to force the Athenians to com-
pliance, he would not have been able to withstand the opposition of the
Athenians to his rule, even as Kylon had not before him and Isagoras
would not after him.
1
He had located the political means to sustain gov-
ernance, employed it, and then passed it along to his sons; these, in turn,
did so as models of sorts to the leaders of early democratic Athens.
Peisistratos formula for political success is reected in Athenian history
in the sixth and fth centuries. It included the demonstration of military
ability, which earned, as a concomitant, fame and popularity; the distribu-
tion of chre
mos
could tap into, and of course by cultivating their images as outstanding
men among their peers. Information is incomplete on any one of these
early democratic leaders, but the evidence, taken altogether, illustrates
parallels.
Those democratic politicians who had ties to the Peisistratids offer per-
haps the clearest and best examples of continuity: their adoption of the
formula seems quite logical. Miltiades (IV), the son of Kimon koalemos,
was himself tyrant of the Chersone
), Miltiades incurred
a huge ne. He died in prison from a wound suffered in action at Paros.
5
Kimon, Miltiades son, earned great popularity for his military suc-
cesses. He was in fact, the architect of the Athenian empire, and that, of
course, spread gain among the Athenian de
se
to the Athenians to colonize.
7
Like his father and Peisistratos before
him, Kimon located sources of enrichment for the Athenians. He trans-
formed military conquest, which built and maintained his reputation, into
political gain by making over his conquests to the Athenians.To increase
his political popularity among the Athenian voters, Kimon employed part
of his share of booty from the Delian League expeditions to nance the
eet, which is to say, to pay the Athenian rowers, perhaps the largest
voting bloc in the early democracy.
8
Like his father, Kimon fell out of
favor with the de
mos.
There are in fact several other points of contact between Kimon and
the tyrants. We read in Plutarchs Life of Kimon that he was a retainer of
poets, grateful advertisers it appears of Kimons exploits and talents.
Melanthios described Kimons conquests of Mnestra and Asteria in
verse, and Archelaos seems to have composed an elegy on the death of
Kimons wife, Isodike: these were perhaps trivial verses, but they are rem-
iniscent of the erotic poetry of tyrants and of tyrant patronage of poets.
10
(It is reasonable to think that Kimon employed these also to glorify his
military conquests, albeit in perhaps a muted fashion.)
11
More pertinent
to the emulation, perhaps, are the Eion inscriptions, which, though they
did not specically name Kimon as victor there, surely reminded the
Athenians of what they well knew. They were, of course, decreed by
the assembly and are heroic in tone.
12
Of course, the transference of the
bones of Theseus after Kimons conquest of Skyros earned very great
acclaim from the Athenians and brought together the images of Kimon
and the Bronze Age hero for the Athenians. (As we have witnessed, this
seems to have been Peisistratos aim in publicizing his Neleid ancestry: it
was part of selling himself to the Athenians.)
13
Like the tyrants, Kimon
used the proceeds that he acquired on campaign to embellish Athens and
win over the Athenians with public works projects. He seems to have
focused much attention on the Akademe, a place particularly associated
with Hipparchos, the son of Peisistratos.
14
Although Themistokles, the consummate politician of the early
democracy, could not rival Kimon in military accomplishments, he was
certainly associated with the defeat of the Persians.There are other sim-
ilarities to Kimon and the tyrants detectable in information about him.
Themistokles was famously associated with the poet Simonides, who had
been patronized by Hipparchos.
15
Simonides celebrated Themistokles
reconstruction of the Lykomid shrine at Phlya. He also gured promi-
nently in Simonides The Sea Fight at Salamis, reckoned apparently a
hero and architect of the victory.
16
Like Kimon,Themistokles associated
himself with famous musicians. He patronized the famous kitharist,
Epikles of Hermione
.
17
Themistokles stint as water commissioner,
restoring the ecient delivery of water to the Athenians, recalls Peisis-
tratos own benefaction of Enneakrounos.
18
Of course, Themistokles
career was at its zenith just after Salamis, a victory that Herodotos says the
Greeks most credited to him.
19
He, too, sought means to enrich the Athe-
nians, but his enemies were able to undermine his position and force him
to ee from Athens.
The last great Athenian politician of the rst of half of the fth century
was, of course, Perikles, the son of Xanthippos, sometimes called the new
Peisistratos by the comic poets. He may well have been the most tyran-
nical of the early democratic leaders of Athens.
20
Apparently a conven-
tional military man himself, Perikles nevertheless seems to have most
distinguished himself in the combination crisis of the midfth
century i.c.r., when it appeared that Athens would lose its empire
altogether.
21
Earlier, he had campaigned and established a reputation as a
courageous soldier at Tanagra.
22
Thereafter, Perikles became the architect
of Athensstepped-up imperialism,dispatching several kle
gos,
a recognition of the importance of war leadership to the Athenians. It is
that which became a springboard for both Peisistratos and the notable
early democratic politicians of Athens; it seems to have at least contributed
to Solons political ascendancy. Solon, however, failed to enrich the de
mos
in accordance with its wishes; Peisistratos, too, failed in his rst two at-
tempts to sustain his place in politics because he lacked the means of its
enrichment. Miltiades failure at Paros spelled his immediate political end.
By the same token, Peisistratos was able to remain tyrant over a long
period and Kimon and Perikles were able to maintain themselves as pre-
eminent leaders of the Athenians for quite some time by managing to lo-
cate and exploit sources of wealth to benet the Athenians.
Where, then, is the line in politics to be drawn between the Peisistratid
tyrants and the earlier democratic leaders of Athens? It is dicult to place,
although we have seen that it is less distinct than it is clear-cut. In fact,
the precise differences between the tyranny and the early democracy
should be reevaluated and made the subject of other, closer studies. For,
indeed, the tyrants and early democratic leaders were not at all polarized,
as the Athenians of the fth century would have us believe their democ-
racy was and as we have believed it ourselves. It would be very good to
ascertain exactly why political leaders of fth-century Athenian democ-
racy and sixth-century tyrants were apparently more similar in political
expression than they were different. Both were reflections of their con-
stituencies after all.
Summary +o;
Appendices
`
:rrrxiix :
The Site of the
Attic Deme Philadai
+;+
`
Philadai was proximate to the temple of Brauronian Artemis in eastern
Attika, and the precinct of Artemis has long been identied just to the
west of Brauron Bay (map +, g. +). To date, there has been no certain
identication of Philadai for lack of conclusive material remains.Adding
to the problem is the fact that the literary evidence about it is sparse and
unhelpful.
1
I visited the area of Brauron in spring +,+ and summer +,,
+,,:, and +,,o, specically to locate and verify the deme site of Phila-
dai. In addition to what little the literary evidence supplied and in lieu of
documentary evidence, my criteria for location were: (+) proximity to the
Artemis complex at Brauron, (:) sufcient signs of habitation during the
pre-Classical and Classical periods, and () overall aptness of the site in
view of conditions one assumes would have affected the choice of settlers
in the Late Bronze and Dark Ages. (The latter criterion therefore included
defensibility and both water and fertile land availability.)
2
One such site
presented itself rst in the spring of +,+, and subsequent visits there
strengthened the identication. The literary evidence and some of the
problems it entails will be set out before proceeding to discussion of the
site I take to be Philadai.
It is necessary rst to confront the question of synonymity: were Brau-
ron and Philadai actually the same place? Plutarch says that Philadai was
the home deme of the Peisistratidai, and he afliates it with Brauron (Sol.
+o.).
3
The relationship of Philadai and Brauron is also depicted in the
scholion for Ar. Aves ;:The Myrrhinousians name Artemis Kolainis,
just as the people of the Peiraios [call her] Mounichia and the people of
Philadai [call her] Brauronia.
4
This evidence makes the two, Brauron
and Philadai, apparently distinct but closely connected. Such a connec-
tion could account for the relative lack of evidence about Philadai, in-
formation about which became subsumed within or occluded by Brau-
ron. Certainly, some modern scholars seem to have equated the two.
5
According to Philochoros (FrGrHist :, F ,), an Atthidographer and
otherwise creditable source for ancient Attic topography, Brauron was one
of the twelve original Kekropid towns of Attika, the ancient
Do
dekapoleis.
6
Jacoby pointed out, however, that Philochoros designa-
tion of the twelve lacks basis and credibility in this instance: evidently the
Atthidographer invented his list from those places he assumed to be most
ancient in Attika.
7
About three hundred years later, Strabo essentially re-
peated Philochoros list, including Brauron among coastal demes of
Attika, while still later the Greek traveler Pausanias described Brauron as
a deme.
8
The Roman Pliny, in the rst century C.E., before Pausanias,
classed Brauron as an oppidum (town), and Pomponius Mela made it an
urbs (city).
9
All of these, including Strabo, undoubtedly followed an older
Greek source that designated Brauron a polis, an asty, or a deme. Indeed,
by the rst century B.C.E., Brauron was desolate,no more than a name.
Since the authors later than Philochoros generally agree about Brauron,
it is reasonable to conclude that they followed the same or similar sources
for Brauron. Inasmuch as Philochoros calls Brauron a polis, albeit
obliquely, the ultimate source for these writers may well have been his
Atthis.
Although such testimony about Brauron (even from Philochoros) is
imsy, as we shall see, it has nevertheless been taken to indicate veritable
political conditions in the time of Kleisthenes. Specically, it is assumed
that Brauron was politically the most important location in the region
before Kleisthenes democratic reforms.
10
That notion is contradicted,
however, by the fact that not it but Philadai was designated the ofcial
deme of the region in the Kleisthenic arrangement. To explain the dis-
agreement, Whitehead, for example, has argued that Kleisthenes went
against his normal practice in designating demes by transferring political
power to the lesser Philadai because of the Peisistratids famous ties to
Brauron.
11
Such a transference was part of Kleisthenes attempt to dis-
solve the Peisistratids power base in the area and, along with it, any residue
of regional political inuence that the still at-large Peisistratids might con-
+;: +nr si +r or +nr :++i c DEME rni i: i:i
tinue to derive from their connection to Brauron. Kleisthenes aim was
to consolidate his new political arrangement and so the democracy by
eliminating the Peisistratids from the new order.
12
Whiteheads explana-
tion seems oddly reasoned in view of the evidence, and it creates many
more problems than it solves, not only with regard to Kleisthenes prac-
tice in designating de
le
le
.
13
Even when hostilities arose between Chalkis and Eretria, and, indeed, af-
ter the Lelantine war had been fought, the two cities remained important
colonial powers.
14
Euboian naval power, suggested by the problematic
Thalassocracy Lists and their concomitant political inuence, can only
have been felt closer to home, in particular along the shores of the Hol-
lows and at Brauron/Philadai.
15
Of the two Euboian cities, Eretria seems always to have played a more
prominent role in eastern Attika. As we have witnessed, the ties between
the Eretrians and the Peisistratids were very close.We have noted that the
names of some of the Peisistratidai (Hippokrates, Hippias, Hipparchos) are
horsenames, and these suggest that the genos was not a little interested
in horses.
16
Whether the Peisistratidai actually engaged in raising horses,
they, like their neighbors, seem to have shared the pretensions (derived
from Mycenaean forebears?) with their powerful neighbors the Eretrians.
The rulers of Eretria in the Archaic Age were the called hippeis, the im-
plications of which are clear enough.
17
These horsemen were further
renowned among the Archaic Greeks for their martial prowess and valor
and because their own claimed forebears, the Homeric Abantes, were be-
lieved by the Greeks to be directly descended from the Achaians of
Homer.
18
The line of the Eretrians descent could have been continuous
from the Late Bronze Age.
19
Veneration of horses in the form of human
and horse burial is conrmed by the heron of Lefkandi, itself a kind of
bridge between the Mycenaean past and the Geometric and Archaic
Ages.
20
Since the Eretrians were powerful and prosperous from at least
the middle of the eighth century B.C.E. and their power was felt along
the eastern Attic shore, it is reasonable to imagine that the values and
lifestyles of their nobility impressed their less powerful cousins of eastern
Attika. (A parallel case is to be found in the notice taken by such as Sap-
pho and Alkaios of the Lydians and their habits in their poetry.) Claim-
ing descent from Achaiansis, of course, exactly what Peisistratos did (see
chapter II.:.B). How inuential were the Eretrians in the formation of
Peisistratos earlier career?
The Eretrian sphere was the sea.They were held to be famous ghters,
and their aims and interests would seem to have devolved upon aggres-
sion and expansion. By the sixth century B.C.E., they were old hands at
colonialism and had developed various ways and means to enhance their
prots. It is not impossible that Peisistratos earlier association with the
Eretrians allowed him to import to Athens newer ghting tactics and
methods to replace the old, ineffectual ones with which the Athenians
had been waging war with Megara. We recall that Peisistratos made his
public mark rst as a soldier, and in this Eretria might have played a cen-
tral role.Although there is no evidence for it, Peisistratos might have taken
military service with the Euboians before debuting at Athens. His strate-
gia implies a record of successful military activity and his victory at Ni-
saia some experience in land/sea operations. Perhaps Eretria, which was
very favorable to Peisistratos even when he was destitute, offered him his
rst chances for acquiring military experience in its colonial sphere, just
as it did later at Rhaike
mos (not
the aristocracy) and, as Solon emphasizes so many times, the key to the
de
le
adikias,
which was displayed on the akropolis and gives, for example, the name of
the grandfather of Myrrhine, is a likely candidate.
5
As mentioned earlier,
while it could be that the horse-compound name Hippokrates indicates
the inuence of the Eretrian hippeis (cf. appendix B), it could also amount
to no more than meaningless affectation by a simple, rural man. At all
events, Hippokrates was a resident of the region of Philadai and landed
to some extent in the area.The identities of Peisistratos paternal grand-
father and grandmother are unknown.
6
Even less is known about Peisistratos mother. She may have hailed
from the environs of Philadai, the diakria, or Eretria or she may even have
been from Athens itself.
7
A special connection between the Eretrians and
the Peisistratidai is indicated by Peisistratos subsequent relationship to the
Euboians (cf. chapter IV.+.A and :.A), and it is possible that it derived
from his mother. In fact, if such a tie existed it more likely came from
Peisistratos mother than from his father, for if Peisistratos father was a
foreigner the information should have surfaced later. Indeed, Peisistratos
own claims to Neleid bloodlines would have been impugned if his line
were non-Attic. For the same reason, though, an Eretrian link for either
father or mother seems unlikely, since no source even hints at such for
Peisistratos and we should expect some notice of it if was fact.
8
Late information about Peisistratos mother is of no value. The testi-
monium that Peisistratos mother was a cousin of Solons (Plutarch, Solon
+.) is not credible (cf. section C) nor again is the entirely ctional and
clearly scurrilous anecdote that Peisistratos mother, in old age, unnatu-
rally and disgracefully took up openly with a much younger man. This
+,: rrosorotr:rn.
Prosopography +,
story is obviously prurient in character, was certainly not generated in the
Archaic period, and may be taken as an invention of a later, much looser
age. Indeed, it involves quaint celebrities among the Hellenistic smart
set doing the kinds of things these fancied such tyrant types would do.
Indeed, the story is stock in any case, proving the sexual licentiousness and
unnaturalness of the generic tyrant, who in this case happened to be Pei-
sistratos.
9
We know nothing of the identities of Peisistratos maternal
grandfather or grandmother.
More about either parent we cannot say except to venture that, on the
basis of the story in Herodotos, it could be that Hippokrates had more to
do with engendering or encouraging Peisistratos ambition to become
tyrant than is readily apparent in Herodotos. Read as representation, Hip-
pokrates role in Herodotos might vaguely allude to a central one he
played in spurring his son on to the tyranny. Certainly, he bears respon-
sibility for it from the outset in Herodotos logos on Peisistratos rise.
10
But this is all very tenuous, and on the other hand the story of Hip-
pokrates pot boiling over seems so stock that it may well possess no other
meaning than its limited, ironic, and entertaining folkloric one. There is
thus just the possibility that something more was known about Hip-
pokrates than Herodotos relates, perhaps information such that it pre-
vented Herakleides Pontikos from linking Solon and Peisistratos through
their fathers (cf. section C). On the other hand, Herakleides, as he seems
to do, may have simply been exploiting the greater void of information
about the mothers of Solon and Peisistratos, thereby avoiding the risk of
contradiction or criticism.
We hear of no siblings of Peisistratos, although it seems unlikely
that he would have been a singleton. Perhaps he had a brother named
Hippokrates.
B. The Archon Peisistratos
Many scholars have assumed that Peisistratos, the archon for oo,o
B.C.E., was related to the tyrant of the sixth century.
11
The ground for
such an assumption is, however, really no more than homonymity.
12
The
name Peisistratos need not have been monopolized by the genos from
Philadai, which, on the basis of Herodotos positive testimony and a lack
of further testimonia to the contrary, was inconsequential before the ad-
vent of the tyrant.
13
The name Peisistratos possessed both Homeric and
Pylian overtones: it recollected Nestor and his son, the companion of
Telemachos, as well as the other Neleids. Other Athenian gene
claimed
Neleid links because, as we have seen, belief in a Pylian lineage could bear
dividends, as it did for the Peisistratids.
14
The same reservations apply to
the appearance of the name Pisisttratoson a pottery sherd that Jeffery,
among others, has identied as the archon. The sherds inscription need
denote neither archon nor tyrant; it could have named someone entirely
different from either.There is no good context for reading it so.
15
Even to allow that the archon was related to the tyrant and his name-
sake nets us little more about the tyrant.Although it may be said that the
Peisistratidai were involved in Athenian political affairs about a century
before Peisistratos sought the tyranny, the elder Peisistratos left no legacy
of any consequence nor did he prepare the ground in any perceptible way
for the tyranny to come.
16
As we have seen, Herodotos marks the tyrant
as a perceived outlander who possessed no appreciable constituency in
the city when he entered politics there. (His initial and continuing lack
of power in the city is indexed in fact by the relative ease with which, at
rst, he was made and unmade twice by Megakles the Alkmeonid, then
the leader of the de
mos.)
17
Even at the time of Palle
ne
le
adikias,
Thucydides (o..+) classies Hippias, Hipparchos, and Thessalos as
gnhvsioi (legitimate) so implying that Peisistratos other children by
Timonassa of Argos (and perhaps others?) were novqoi (illegitmate).
Evidently Peisistratos had a lawfulAthenian wife who produced these
legitimate heirs before his marriage to the Argive, which produced the
illegitimate.
40
Thucydides says in the same passage that Hippias was the
+, rrosorotr:rn.
eldest of the legitimate children, Herodotos that he was a very old man
(sc. over seventy years) at the time of Marathon in ,o B.C.E. (o.+o;.+).
41
Peisistratos rst marriage, then, had to have taken place before his initial
attempt at tyranny (o+oo B.C.E.) and probably before the conclusion of
the Megarian war, perhaps ca. o B.C.E.
42
It is reasonable to think that
the rst marriage came about with some political advantages for Peisis-
tratos in view, since his second and third marriages were arranged to bring
such advantages.
The date of Peisistratos rst marriage is often more precisely calculated
in respect of Hippias age. Beyond his rank as eldest son and his elderliness
at Marathon, Herodotos says that Hippias gave advice to Peisistratos at Ere-
tria, apparently in the mid-os, after the tyrant had been expelled from
Athens for the second time (Hdt. +.o+.). Hippias could not have been
younger than teenage at a minimum to have given such advice and, on
the testimony of Herodotos, a reasonably solid terminus ante quem seems
to have been established for Hippias birth at oo B.C.E. While the fact of
the younger tyrants extreme old age is helpful for dating his birth, albeit
very approximately, and so Peisistratos rst marriage, Thucydides infor-
mation that Hippias was eldest tells us nothing about his birth date or the
dating of Peisistratos rst marriage and so is of no use here. On closer in-
spection, the advice story of Herodotos is also unhelpful.
To accept that Hippias gave advice to Peisistratos on the island of
Euboia after the second expulsion from Athens, a number of substantial
difculties must be overcome. First, taking the testimonium at face value,
we must believe that Peisistratos arrived on Euboia with no plan of his
own and unable to come up with one: in other words, he was hapless in
Eretria but for Hippias advice.The very fact that Peisistratos traveled to
Euboia and not elsewhere belies that. Moreover, though Peisistratos was
the leader of his party, a former tyrant, the most experienced and success-
ful in war and politics, the apparent author of every plan before and after
the conference on Euboia, and must have been indisputably the center
of authority among his followers, he had to rely on the advice of a mere
stripling, without such practical experience, whose counsel nevertheless
prevailed over that which was generated by others older and wiser.All of
this is quite unbelievable.
Adding to the problems created by taking the testimonium at face are
much more serious ones of transmission.We must believe that the fam-
ily conference not only occurred in fact but that record of it was some-
how preserved and accurately transmitted (presumably by some sort of
Prosopography +,,
eyewitness chronicler?) rst to Herodotos source and then to Herodotos
himself, all this, despite the fact that, beyond Hippias advice, nothing of
the other participants, including the principal Peisistratos, survived.
43
Who was that original source? How was this history transmitted? These
problems undermine the advice of Hippiasstory, which must be classed
as nonhistorical. Its context is Herodotos account of Peisistratos rise:
there is much that is implausible there.
The story of Hippias advice must be read in fact as yet another part of
the doctored fth-century Athenian history of the Peisistratids. The
story trades on Hippias memory as evil tyrant, a man most infamous
for his will to return to Athens and rule as tyrant again. (Its genesis is thus
best placed around or after Marathon, when Hippias demonstrated his
erce resolve to reclaim his lost tyranny.) The story was inserted in the
account of Peisistratos rise in Herodotos as a kind of interstitial adden-
dum to explain why Peisistratos returned to Attika to take up the tyranny,
the blame for which return falls squarely on the hated Hippias. Indeed,
like son, like father: the anachronism was credible because Hippias own
resolve to return to power was notable and he could well be believed as
having put his father up to the same thing.
44
In the context of the earli-
est stages of Peisistratos nal exile, the advice of Hippiasmakes no sense
at all; as ction used to give reason for Peisistratos long efforts in the north
and resolve to return to the tyranny, it makes a great deal of sense as an
aetiology.
45
It obviously cannot be used even to bear on the date of Pei-
sistratos rst marriage because it is unhistorical.
46
While Hippias could
have been a youth in the mid-os, we can estimate that and the dating
of Peisistratos rst marriage from the reasonably creditable fact that Hip-
pias was very old at the time of Marathon.
It is to be assumed that Peisistratos was not under the age of thirty at
the time of his command in the war against Megara and that, like most
Athenian males, he was married to his rst wife proximate to that age.
Thirty was the normal age of marriage for Athenian and other Greek
males in the Archaic and Classical periods, it was also the minimum age
for the Athenian strate
gia
and Nisaia, ca. oo (rather later than his thirtieth year but nearer in
time to Peisistratos rst bid for tyranny).
51
As for Peisistratos rst wifes identity, Schachermeyr made her an
Athenian, since, as we have seen,Thucydides makes a distinction between
gnhv sioi and nov qoi on the ste
le
adikias.
52
Hippias, Hipparchos, and
Thessalos were Athenian; Hegesistratos and Iophon were not. Based on
a supercial regard for what Athenians considered legitimate offspring,
Schachermeyrs assertion is overemphasized by him and others in lieu of
further evidence about the tyrants rst wife. Simply put, we do not know
that Peisistratos rst wife was Athenian.
The anonyma can have been a foreigner and her sons counted as le-
gitimateAthenians nonetheless.There are several examples. Kleisthenes,
the son of Megakles (II) and author of democracy, was, along with his
other siblings,legitimate, although his mother Agariste was a Sikyonian.
The mother of Kimon (II), the son of Miltiades (IV), was the daughter of
a Thracian dynast, yet Kimon was accepted as Athenian, that is, until
Perikles brazenly political citizenship law of +o B.C.E. made him a
metic (a non-Athenian).
53
Thus though Peisistratos rst wife were a for-
eigner, her offspring could yet have been legitimate.Whether Peisis-
tratos wife was foreign or native, the fact that her sons were elder born
and succeeded to the tyranny at Athens can have designated them as such
Prosopography :o+
to Thucydides. (It is obvious, after all, that Thucydides was working with
very little when it came to Peisistratid genealogy and succession.) The off-
spring of Timonassa were, on the other hand, nothoi because they were
younger, obviously born of a foreigner, and, most importantly perhaps,
not accorded a share of the tyranny at Athens.
54
While we may not de-
clare outright that the name of Peisistratos rst wife was written on the
ste
le
le
. Notwithstand-
ing, her status as foreign or Athenian was likely not indicated.
Peisistratos rst marriage could have been to an Eretrian woman,
perhaps contracted to gain the support of the Eretrian hippeis.Although
we do not know what he obtained from this marriage, there were re-
cent models provided by others for the ambitious. Megakles (II), the
Alkmeonid, surely got something tangible out of wedding Agariste,
the daughter of Kleisthenes of Sikyon. Before him, Kylon wed the
daughter of Theagenes of Megara clearly for political gain. On the other
hand, both were in much different conditions from those of Peisistratos,
who had yet to prove himself in the war with Megara. He was, as yet, a
nobody.
Indeed, it is a open question whether Peisistratos had already deter-
mined upon his political agenda, though it would appear that his ascent
to power was gradual and incremental. Nisaia was a watershed for him
and an indispensable ingredient in that progress. In view of the fact that
Peisistratos went unnoticed and was apparently a nonparticipant in
Athenian politics before serving as a soldier for Athens and proving him-
self in the eld, it is not easy to see what, for its part, an Eretrian genos
(or anybody else) could get from a match with such a nonentity. Peisis-
tratos did have recourse to Eretria after the second tyranny, and one way
to explain the conspicuous cordiality and cooperation extended to him
there later is to assume that his rst wife was of the Eretrian nobility.
55
On balance, however, it seems more reasonable to believe that Peisis-
tratos rst wife was, at least, of Attika and that this rst marriage was
forged for more limited aims than Megakles and Kylons. Such a mar-
riage could have been intended to help produce the political support
needed for Peisistratos to become rst a regional leader of warriors or
even Athenian strate
ne
, Hegesis-
tratos having brought them. Some say that Peisistratos married the Argive
woman during his rst exile, some when he was ruling (+;.).
58
Al-
though much of this information seems to complement what Thucydides
gives us about the legitimate sons of Peisistratos and could be derived
at least partly from the ste
le
ne
ne
occurred
in ;o or o B.C.E., then Peisistratos had to have married Timo-
nassa no later than very early in the rst tyranny (i.e., o+oo).
62
Such a
union makes a good deal of sense, then, since Peisistratos as tyrant could
benet from a powerful Argive backer.
63
Unfortunately, the information about Hegesistratos leadership at
Palle
ne
ne
ne
ne
.
Timonassa leaves the picture sometime before Palle
ne
to be sure: she
may have died or been divorced on honorable terms in the meantime.
Children from the union had nevertheless cemented the association with
the Argives. On the evidence, Peisistratos second marriage began during
his rst tyranny (o+oo B.C.E.) and lasted until some time before (per-
haps well before) Palle
ne
ne
cnroxoiot.
Peisistratos Chronology :+
ignated seventy years as ge
ti :
:xi +nr ri rs+ +.r:xx.
A. First Tyranny Year
Herodotos (+.,.) states that Peisistratos held the strate
le
cnroxoiot.
Ath.Pol. was merely calculated as Peisistratos akme
gia Dates
As mentioned before (appendix C.:.A.), the Athenians of the Classical
period imposed age qualications on candidates for the strate
gia. Peisis-
tratos attainment of the strate
ne
,
he would just have made seventy when he died in :;. This puts
him on the young side of things for his early career and his death
agecertainly not impossible.
If we adopt somewhat higher dates in the range for Peisistratos birth
(i.e., oo; B.C.E.), then he was a general no earlier that ; B.C.E. and
forty-six or forty-seven at the time of his rst attempt at tyrannyrather
old, especially when we consider that he not only later survived the rig-
ors of Thrace for a very long time but ourished for nearly twenty years
in his renewed tyranny at Athens. His notable conduct in the Megarian
war should not have long preceded his attempt to capitalize on it or the
de
gia and
the victory over the Megarians at Nisaia should be dated perhaps between
;; and ;;:, that is, between Peisistratos thirtieth and thirty-fth
year or around fty to forty-ve years before his death in ::;. But
that would make him ca. sixty-two at the time of Palle
ne
gia before o+oo, that he must have been young enough to survive
the harshness and rigors of the north later, and that he was still vigorous
enough to have led the Palle
ne
ne
xr
Herodotos (.o.) says that the tyranny of the Peisistratids lasted thirty-
six years; AP says (+,.o) thirty-five. The archonship of Harpaktides, we
know, occurred during +++o B.C.E. Thus, the reestablishment of the
tyranny, and so the battle of Palle
ne
ne
cnroxoiot.
date of return is given as o B.C.E. (Ath.Pol. +.:).There is garbling
here and something quite amiss with the chronology of the Ath.Pol.
Although Herodotos errs with respect to precise chronologythe
most famous case, of course, is perhaps his union of Solon and Kroisos
he is to be preferred for the length of time he assigns the entire tyranny
before the archonship of Harpaktides, viz., thirty six years. The date for
the beginning of the nal tyranny must be, by reckoning, o B.C.E.: this
aligns with Palle
ne
los enterprise
Strymon enterprise
ca. /;? (o yrs.) Fourth marriage: Koisyra of Eretria
Campaign for Lygdamis of Naxos
o (:; yrs.) Palle
ne
Third tyranny
::;* (;o; yrs.) Death of Peisistratos (geraios or
old man)
*
Fixed date in the life of Peisistratos.
:+ rri si s+r:+os
cnroxoiot.
:rrrxiix r
The Origins of the
Herodotean Parties
:+,
`
If Herodotos plain,shore, and beyond-the-hills parties have noth-
ing at all to do with early-sixth-century political realities at Athens, but
fth-century ones, whence do they derive? As we have seen, the parties
do not align with the Solonian divisions (chapter III.:.A.:).They also do
not align in specics with Kleisthenes later political divisions, that is, city
(a[sth), inland (mesovgeia), and shore (paravlia): obviously, they do not
derive from this arrangement.
1
Rather, ultimately Herodotos parties
of the plain(tw`n ejk tou` pedivou),of the shore(tw`n paravlwn), and of
the hill (tw`n uJperakrivwn) must be connected to the myth of Pandions
portioning of Attika among his sons, the names of which regions are
nearly identical.
2
In the myth, Pandion divided the lands of Attika among
his four sons.Aigeos, the eldest, received (the land) beside the asty,which
must have included the plain nearest it.
3
Pallas received the paralia,
which we know from Thucydides extended to the south of the city,
4
and Lykos received the diakria over toward Euboia.
5
Nisos, the fourth
son, received the Megarid, which seems to have included Eleusis and the
Thriasian Plain.
6
Jacoby has pointed out that these are geographical di-
visions, implying no political organization. However, they may have
seemed political to later Athenians viewing their remote history.
7
Jacoby also suggested with some plausibility that the myth of Pandions
portioning, the absolute terminus ante quem for whose appearance he
dated to the early fth century B.C.E., had actually come into being much
earlier, during the Megarian war, as legitimizing propaganda to bolster
Athens claims to Eleusis and the Thriasian Plain.
8
Indeed, a period of
acute antagonism between Athens and Megara would evolve just such
exaggerated claims as to the entire Megarid, even as it had the Athenian
claims to Salamis.
9
Jacobys suggestion that the myth was no more than
the propaganda of a type noised about during Athens war with Megara
gains force from the fact that the Athenians failed to follow up Peisistratos
apparently decisive victory at Nisaia by absorbing any further part of
the Megarid.
10
Whatever the source, a war cry for Athenians ghting
Megara for control of Eleusis and the Thriasian Plain during the early
sixth century could well have been:Four parts of Attika: plain, shore, hill,
and Megarid!It would certainly have been bolstered by the myth of Pan-
dions portioning, a terminus ante quem for which might best be xed
during the period of the war.
If this war cry or some similar phrase were widely voiced during the
Megarian war, became renowned and identied with it and the times and
so with Peisistratos, who was most successful in that war, its recollection
could evoke the period of the Megarian war for later Athenians and might
have become conuent with it in later popular thinking. Indeed, for those
looking backward at events in the early sixth century from the vantage
point of the fth century, the geographical portioning of Pandion, less
what must have been considered even by the beginning of the fth cen-
tury an incredible claim (i.e., . . . and Megarid!), might have seemed
quite plausible as a veritable arrangement describing politics in pre-
Peisistratid Athens.That arrangement was especially apt for making over
into just three credible political divisions, especially if things were, in com-
bination, hazy and meant by their authors not to be recollected clearly.
11
(Of course, the three divisions would have gained credibility from their
rough agreement with the Kleisthenic divisions as well.)
Other information the Alkmeonidai supplied Herodotos about their
ancestors, including Alkmeon and Megakles, strongly supports the possi-
bility of a purposeful myth-historical conation in the case of the
Herodotean parties on their part for the historian. Megakles progeny re-
lated as fact the story of their ancestors wooing of Agariste,embellished
as it is with heroic age overtones, as well as that of gold-laden Alkmeon,
who is impossibly linked to the fabulous Kroisos (though not to the lesser
light, Alyattes).
12
The Alkmeonidai appear to have been as untroubled in
passing along to Herodotos even extravagantly altered or embellished
facts about men such as Megakles and Alkmeon as Herodotos was in tak-
::o +nr ori ti xs or +nr nrroio+r:x r:r+i rs
ing and recording them. Presumably, the same authority that persuaded
Herodotos of the Alkmeonid history of the tyranny also did so of the
validity of these stories.The wooing of Agariste involving Megakles and
Alkmeons hoarding of Sardian gold, mythical as they were, were atter-
ing to the Alkmeonidai, who were thus shown to have moved in exalted,
even heroic company. (As we have seen [chapter II.:.C], being identied
with heroes seems to have been part of the game involving political ad-
vancement in the early sixth century B.C.E. at Athens.)
A similar kind of historical thinking, attering but also apologetic,
helps to account for the Herodotean parties.The introduction of the
parties simultaneously boosted the Alkmeonids prestige by placing
Megakles vaguely among the heroic and legendary, while, in doing so, it
distanced him (and his genos) from the sillyde
los
:::
`
AP (+.:) says that Rhaike
los
location.The site has never been positively identied.To ascertain more
about the location of the site, we must turn to another reference in a non-
historical source, Lykophrons Alexandra (+:o;), composed in the early
third century B.C.E.:
o (sc. Aeneas) am to r v Poi xpov oi xp ori om v,
Kiooou ao oi au v am vo xoi Aouoti o
xroooou yuvoixo.
[(Aeneas) will come here rst and settle Rhaike
los
By the steep headland of Kissos and the Laphystiai,
The horn-bearing women.]
1
On appearances, these lines might be taken simply as poetic periphrasis,
vague and allusive descriptions of Thrace colored with Bacchic over-
tones. This part of Thrace, which was incorporated into Macedonia in
the early Classical period, was especially identied with Dionysos. Kissos
means ivy,Dionysos vegetal symbol, and the Laphystiai, the horn-bear-
ing women, are obviously bacchants. Kissos and Rhaike
.
3
Now,Aineia and Kissos were obviously proximate to one another, and
information about Aineias location will obviously pertain to Rhaike
los.
Aineia was situated on the eastern side of the Thermaic Gulf, we know,
and so must Kissos have been. According to the Roman Livy, Aineia was
distant from Thessalonike
at Nea Mihaniona.
5
The site occupies a portion of the
promontory of Megalo Karabournou, perhaps the sheer headland to
which Lykophron refers (g. ;).
6
Kissos should be near Aineia and on that
headland.
Indeed, if Lykophrons information is correct for Rhaike
los, it is to be
located near Kissos and Aineia, apparently southwest of Thessalonike
and
on or near the sheer headland of Megalo Karabournou.The authors of
the Athenian Tribute Lists went as far as to equate Aineia with Rhaike
los
and that is a reasonable equation in view of the evidence available, as
we shall presently see. Edson, and more recently Viviers, however, have
denied the identication, arguing that Rhaike
los. Use of
the word oi xri v differentiates Rhaike
los en-
compassed an area that included the entire promontory of Megalo
Karabournou and so could be said to stand under Kissos. According to
Edson, Peisistratos settlement was not called Rhaike
los.
8
The Site of Rhaike
los ::
Viviers takes up essentially the same line of argument as Edson, reject-
ing the description of Rhaike
los).
Both arguments are unconvincing, especially because of their treat-
ment of the sources.The scholiast to Lykophron and Stephanos Byzanti-
nos explicitly term Rhaike
los.
15
In fact, Theon seems to have made explicit in
his commentary on Lykophron what was to be guessed at [sc. by most
:: +nr si +r or rn:i kr
ios
readers] rather than understood in the Alexandra.
16
Composed by
Lykophron in the second quarter of the third century B.C.E., the Alexan-
dra is described by Sandys as a strange combination of mythological, his-
torical and linguistic learning, grievously wanting in taste and deliberately
obscure in expression.
17
The literary merits of Lykophron aside, it is what he says about
Rhaike
los and Aineia the same place.What that source said further about
the site was of no concern to Lykophron, who was more interested in the
allusion that Rhaike
eclipsed Aineia,
Dikaia, and Therme
los in fact, the latter must have been very near the for-
The Site of Rhaike
los ::
mer, and, in view of Aineias later demonstrated wealth, that proximity
makes great sense.What Peisistratos and the Eretrians wanted was wealth,
and the region taken over by Aineia could supply that.
By Lykophrons time, Rhaike
los could be
substituted for Aineia. Theon or his source diverged from AP and his
source, perhaps an Atthis, whose author, himself uncaring of Aineias con-
nection to it, specied that which Peisistratos founded, viz., Rhaike
los. It
is important to note, however, that these older sources agree that
Rhaike
los to that
of Lykophron and Theon. In fact, as we have seen, they do not disagree
at all.
The weaknesses in the arguments of Edson and Viviers are obvious.
The distinction Edson strives to make between region and settlement is
undermined by his concession that Peisistratos Rhaike
ios
the equation of Rhaike
ne
toward Mace-
donia but omits Dikaia from the list. It is no surprise, then, that Dikaia,
which was apparently at some distance from the sheer headland, was
eclipsed by Aineia, even as Rhaike
los was.
27
The location of Rhaike
los may perhaps best be viewed as the prototype for the later
Peisistratid colonies at Sigeion, Elaious, and other locations in the Thra-
cian Chersone
se; it may also have been the prototype for the Strymon
settlement to some degree.
The Site of Rhaike
los ::;
:rrrxiix t
Peisistratos and the Purification of Delos
::
`
ACTI ONS AND I NTENTI ONS
Herodotos informs us that, shortly after Palle
ne
ne
.
3
First, and most
obviously, the tyrant conrmed his piety and implication with divinity,
this time with Apollo instead of Athena. (Presumably, implication with his
patroness had already been rmly established and accepted.) Both Athena
and Apollo were civilizing forces, and, this expressed, special devotion to
Apollo would encourage good reaction from the Athenians.
4
There is
thus a religious/political angle involved.
Second, Peisistratos demonstrated to the Ionians and the Athenians that
Athens was now to play a prominent role in the mid- and eastern Aegean.
According to Andrewes, the purication of Delos was a notable asser-
tion of Athens primacy among the Ionian cities, and that is a fair state-
ment since the purication was both ostentatious and memorable.
5
As it
was designed to do, the purication made a lasting impression on the
islanders, Ionians, and Athenians, and it is surely to be linked with Athens
claims to hegemony over the Ionians.
6
It may also be linked with Peisis-
tratos earlier intervention in Naxos on behalf of Lygdamis. By installing
Lygdamis as tyrant before Palle
ne
ne
tropolis.
At least some will have borne with them stories of Persian might and
crimes and with them the fears of Persias further designs on mainland
Greece.
8
As later, during and after the Ionian revolt, disquiet was created
by events in Anatolia, but trepidations would only increase with the ar-
rival of the displaced and the telling of their stories. Peisistratos purica-
tion was thus also something of a statement of assurance, a forward move
toward danger, not away from it, in the looming crisis with Persia.
Finally, and as a concomitant of these last, events in Ionia allowed a
quick-order shifting of the Athenians attention away from the defeat at
Palle
ne
ne
ne
ne
rian), or did
Kreon think that Oedipous did not notice Kreons plan creeping for-
ward craftily(o,)? Oedipous means to indicate to the all-important
audience of Thebans that he is still the thoughtful, clever man that he was
before and that he can and will demolish the conspiracy using his supe-
rior intelligence.Thus, intellect is key to the politics of the play; through-
out the play, there is never a mention of money or of philoi.
Certainly by line o of Oedipous Tyrannos, Oedipous, the Thebans, and
the Athenian audience are all quite aware of the realities of the political
game at Thebes. It is exactly that intellectual eminence of long ago that
Oedipous strives to reassert throughout the play by systematically search-
ing for the real murderer of Laios; it is the same eminence that Kreon
might establish by scapegoating the king as that murderer, ending the cri-
:: sornokirs :xi nrroio+os ox +.r:xx.
sis and deposing Oedipousor so the tyrant fears.
7
It is crisis-solving
ability that the suffering Thebans require as a remedy for their present
wretchedness and that Oedipous well knows he must demonstrate anew
if he is to survive as tyrant. It is the same ability that Kreon must also
demonstrate if he is to replace Oedipous as ruler of Thebes. Power, money,
or philoi cannot buy or coerce the ultimate truth: Oedipous painstaking
investigation and Kreons alleged conspiracy may proceed by wit alone,
not by force.
Thus, lines o: do not conform to Oedipous path to tyranny, to
his own current efforts to keep it, or to Kreons possible path to it. The
sentiments expressed are thus tangential to the plot and t in really only
as a taunt based upon a generality. By stating a general rule about tyranny
that he alleges Kreon does not know as his parting shot, Oedipous asserts
the superiority of his own intelligence to his competitors intellect in the
presence of the crucial Theban audience.
8
Spoken outside of the imme-
diate context of the plot, the generality nonetheless carries the imposing
force of a self-standing truth.
In fact, it has long been recognized by Sophoklean scholars that these
lines more generally describe the conditions under which Greek tyrants
acquired their tyrannies than they apply to the circumstances of the
tragedys plot.
9
According to Jebb,Soph(ocles) is thinking of the histori-
cal Greek tu ovvo, who commonly began his career as a demagogue.
10
Dawe, on the other hand, narrows the generality to Athenian tyranny, and
that is undoubtedly correct.
11
Both the author and audience of Oedipous
Tyrannos naturally knew the Athenian form of tyranny best, and Sopho-
kles could count on the Athenians easily to recognize the validity of such
a gnomic formula if it referred to the tyranny of the Peisistratids.
The assumption is corroborated to some extent by Thucydides, an
Athenian himself, who observed that a surplus of money was generally
requisite for the rise of Archaic tyrannies throughout Greece (+.+.+).
12
The observation was grounded in Thucydides familiarity with Peisistratid
tyranny but broadened by him to include Greece generally.
13
Thus, while
the sentiments that Oedipous expresses in lines o: do not apply to
his own case or to Kreons, they do reect what appears to be common
fth-century Athenian opinion that in times past tyrannies were founded
upon superior wealth, specically the formula used by Athens tyrant, Pei-
sistratos, to found his tyranny.
14
Oedipous declaration, however, is more comprehensive than Thucy-
dides narrower economic formula, perhaps something the historian dis-
Sophokles and Herodotos on Tyranny :
tilled for himself from more general Athenian or Greek opinion.
15
Not
surprisingly, the repeated citations of money and philoi as tyrannys
prerequisites more closely match Herodotos accounting of Peisistratos
rise to the tyranny at Athens (+.,o).
16
In that account, as we have seen,
Herodotos says not once but repeatedly in quite a short space that
money(chre
mata: +.o+. twice, o+., o:.:, o.+; dotinas (gifts): o+.) and
philoi (= allies or partisans) (mistho
ne
(Hdt. ;.o; Paus. +.::.;); and the actor Thespis (Mar.Par. Ep. ). Cf. Podlecki
+,o, off.; Podlecki +,, +;;, +:; and Rhodes +,+, :::,, on Anakreon and
Simonides. Both Anakreon and Lasos seem to have drawn pupils, such as Aeschylus
(cf. schol.Aqs. Prom. M.+: [cf. Podlecki +,o, +, n. :;]) and Pindar (cf. schol. Pind.
Olym. +.:ob [cf. Podlecki +,, ::o]). (See also Vit.Pind. +.+.+ on Agathokles and
Apollodoros, apparently Athenian teachers of Pindar.) Cf. de Libero +,,o, +:. Al-
though Rhodes (+,+, ::,), designates him a poet, Herodotos (;.o.) calls Ono-
makritos a pooo yo (oracle monger; cf. de Libero +,,o, +:,). On Homer,
Homeric recitals, festivals, and the Peisistratidai, cf. Davison +,; de Libero +,,o,
+++o; Ford +,,,, ::; and n. .
. Cf., for example, Raaaub +,,, +,.While Kleisthenes realigned the tribes (al-
beit after the manner of his tyrant grandfather: cf. Hdt. .o;.+; and How and Wells
+,+:, :., who misunderstand Herodotos thoroughly here), redistributed power, and
was credited by some with effecting other reforms such as ostracism (cf. Ath.Pol.
:+.::.; and Rhodes +,+, :o;;+; cf. also Ostwald +,; and Hansen +,,+, ),
the festivals of the tyrants, including the nationalistic Greater Panathenaia (cf. Simon
+,, ff.; and Morgan +,,o, :o,+o), continued to be celebrated just as before, their
messages apparently unaltered: cf. Simon +,, ff.; Parker +,,o, ;ff.; and Maurizio
+,,, :,;ff.
,. Thuc. o..o: to or o o ou tp p ao i ai v toi xrir voi vo oi
rpto. . . . Hdt. +.,.o: outr tio to rouoo ouvtooo outr 0roio rt-
ooo (cf. also nn. : and +). AP (::.+) says that the laws of Solon had disap-
peared through the tyranny because of lack of use (ooviooi tpv tuovvioo oio
to p po0oi).This is surely a rationalization at least partly intended to explain why
Kleisthenes introduced changes to Athens government, as well as when he did it. Cf.
Rhodes (+,+, :o+), who judges the passage in Ath.Pol. to be simply wrong. Cf. also
Ostwald +,o,, +;. See also chapter III, nn. o:.
+o. Hdt. +.,.. Cf. chapter III.:.A.o and B; and Hammer :ooo, . On
the more precise operative denition of demos used in this volume see chapter III
:.A.:.
++. The watershed mentality about the establishment of the democracy is
nicely summed up by Ober (+,,, :+o):I shall go one step further out on the limb
: xo+rs +o r:trs :
by suggesting that the moment of the revolution, the end of the archaic phase of
Athenian political history, the point at which the Athenian democracy was born,
was a violent, leaderless event: a three-day riot in o/; that resulted in the removal
of Kleomenes I and his Spartan troops from the soil of Attika. Cf. also Ostwald
+,o,, +,. For a view opposing this type of mentality, see Hammer +,,. (While
certainly on the right track, Hammer nevertheless does not go far enough with the
thesis.) For some creditation of the Peisistratidai and the persistence of tyranny in
Classical Athens, cf. Stanton +,:, ,ff.; and Kallet +,,, :.
+:. IG I
3
+o+ (SEG +o, :). Cf. Meritt +,,; Cadoux +,, +o,+o; Bradeen
+,o; Alexander +,,;Thompson +,,; McGregor and Eliott +,,;White +,;;
Kinzl +,;oa; Stahl +,;, +,; Lewis +,, :,; Raaaub +,, :oo:o+;
Develin +,,, ;; Dillon and Garland +,,, +oo;; and de Libero +,,o, ++, n. o,
+:::. Cf. also Stanton +,:, ++o+:; and Lavelle +,,, ::, n. .
+. Cf. chapter V.
+. Hdt. .o,.+. Cf. also Moles :oo:, o:; and n. . Moles () calls Herodotos
account of Kleisthenes unenamoured.
+. Hipparchos archonship: Dion. Hal. o.+.+ (Cadoux +,, ++o; Develin +,,,
); cf. Davies +,;+, +; Rhodes +,+, :;+;:; and Lavelle +,,, :. Leader of the
tyrannist faction: Ath.Pol. ::.; cf. also n. +o; and Ghinatti +,;o, ,ff.
+o. Ath.Pol. ::.; Rhodes +,+, :;+;:; cf. Lavelle +,b, +,, , nn. ; and ;
and Dillon and Garland +,,o, +o:.
+;. Miltiades as a cooperative of the tyrants and archon for :: B.C.E.: see n.
+:; cf. Cadoux +,, ++o++; Stahl +,;, +++; Lavelle +,,, :,ff.; Cawkwell +,,,
;,o; and de Libero +,,o, ,+, ,o. See also n. +.
+. Hdt. o.+:o; Corn. Nep. +..+ (= Ephoros). Cf. Lavelle +,c, :;o; +,,,
, nn. :,o. Herodotos (o.+o.:) notes that Miltiades was chosen by the de
mosto
be war leader (strate
gos). He had in fact been acquitted of tyranny. On the life and ca-
reer of Miltiades, see Berve +,;; Bengston +,,; and Kinzl +,o. Cf. n. .
+,. Cf. Sancisi-Weerdenburg :ooob, , who alludes to the half-known and
unknown prominents who erected statues and other insignia of their status in tem-
ples and graveyards.
:o. Areopagos: cf. Badian +,;+; Karavites +,;;, +o; and Lavelle +,,, ff. Cf.
also Wallace +,, ;:ff., who is rather more cautious about the nature of the Areopa-
gos after the tyrants. That the Council was still a very signicant political body
through the rst decade of the fth century is proven in any case by, for example, the
archonships of Hipparchos,Themistokles, and Aristeides.
:+. The implication of Persians and Peisistratids is made by Miltiades in his
speech before Marathon (Hdt. o.+o,.). Obviously, these invented words nd con-
text well after the fact of the battle, but they do reect the ocial coupling of bar-
barians and tyrants in fth-century Athens. Cf. Csapo and Miler +,,, ++,. See also
nn. and .
::. Cf.Aesch. .+; Plut. Them. ::.; and Kim. ;..:. Cf. also Lavelle +,,, o,
n. ; Boedeker +,,, +,o,+; Hlscher +,,, +o,; and Kallet +,,, :.
:. Hdt.+.,.+: to r v 'Attixo v xotro rvo v tr xoi oiroaoor vov r auv-
0ovrto o Koioo uao Hrioiototou. The agent of both participles must be Pei-
sistratos: cf. Bornitz +,o, +, and :, n. :; McNeal +,o, +:; How and Wells
+,+:, +.o; contra Petzold +,,o, +. Cf. also Lavelle :ooo, ;, n. ++. See also n. :.
Notes to Pages , :,
:. Badtyrant as stock: cf. Rosivach +,, ; and Lavelle +,,, +::. See
also n. :; and chapter III, n. +.
:. In the case of the Peisistratids, the latter charges most explicitly apply to Hip-
parchospass at Harmodios (Thuc. o..+, o) and to Hippias paranoid reaction
after Hipparchos death (Thuc. o.,.:).These, taken together with Herodotos testi-
mony (see n. :), suggest a tradition of evil attaching to the Peisistratids. On the
Debate on Government (Hdt. .o), see, for example, Lateiner +,; Cassola
+,; and Raaaub +,,, +; cf. Hansen +,,a, :ff.; Hansen +,,b, +;; cf. also
Stahl +,;, ,, n. ; and Lavelle +,,, :, n. .
:o. Cf. Lavelle +,,:b, ;,ff.; and +,,, +o,ff.
:;. Hdt. +.o:.+: p tuovvi ao r ru0ri p p v o oaooto trov; cf. chapter
IV.:.BC.
:. rai tr toioi xotrotrmoi rvrr tpv aoiv xoormv xom tr xoi ru . (Cf.
Kallet :oo, +:; and nn. , and +.) While this contradiction and the mention of Pei-
sistratos distinguished record during the Megarian war (Hdt. +.,.; cf. chapter
II..B.C) do not reverse the generally negative overtone in Herodotos account of
Peisistratos rise, they nevertheless illustrate the Athenians apparent double-minded-
ness about Peisistratid tyranny: cf. chapter III.:.B and n. +. Cf. also Morgan :ooa.
:,. Cf. Lavelle :ooo, ;; see chapter III.:.A..
o. Cf. nn. , and +.
+. Thuc. o..o: tpv tr aoiv outmv xom oirxoopoov xoi tou aorou
oirrov xoi r to iro r0uov. Cf. also nn. , and :.
:. Thuc. o.o.+. Lavelle +,oa; +,,, ++,:+.
. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +,,+; and Lavelle +,,, o.
. Cf. Lavelle +,,, o:.
. Cf. Bengston and Bloedow +,, +:The rule of Peisistratus rested upon il-
legal force. On the tyrannicide cult, see for example, Taylor +,+; Gafforini +,,o;
Schlange-Schningen +,,o; Boedeker +,,, +,o, :o+:; and Raaaub :oo, oo,.
Cf. also Lavelle +,,, off. and n. +o,; Lavelle :ooo, o (the last three with further
bibliography); and Dillon and Garland +,,, ++;:o.
o. Cf. Lavelle +,,, :.
;. Cf. ibid., +:. Cf. also Hdt. .o: the word rmv used to address Hipparchos
by a beautiful dream-apparition in the rst line of the couplet is complimentary and
suggests royal status. The prophecy that those who will harm him will not escape
punishment in the second line is a very surprising sentiment, running counter to
what the tyrannicide tradition and cult imply (cf. Dover +,;o, :). Cf. How and
Wells +,+:, :.:; Lavelle +,, :;; and Moles :oo:, +: (on the Alkmeonids).
Cf. also nn. , ,, and .
. Cf. Isok. +o.:; and Lavelle +,,, oo, n. o. See also n. ,.
,. Cf. Lavelle +,,, ;, n. o. See also n. .
o. Lavelle +,,, o+ff.
+. Important for certain aspects of the Peisistratid tyranny but not comprehen-
sive is Toepffer +,;. Cornelius work (+,:,) is comprehensive but somewhat vague
and not at all probing. Schachermeyrs pieces (+,;a, +,;b), while pithy and funda-
mental, are, after all, Pauly articles. De Liberos treatment (+,,o, +) is part of
a much larger work on Archaic Greek tyranny. Smiths little book (+,,) merely
:o xo+rs +o r:trs
skims the information about the Peisistratids, as does French +,;. Cf. also Sancisi-
Weerdenburg :ooo; and n. :.
:. Noteworthy exceptions are Kinzl +,;,a, +o; Stahl +,;; and, to a lesser
degree, Sancisi-Weerdenburg :ooo.
. Cf. Martin +,,o, o;; and Orrieux and Pantel +,,,, o. Some scholars, for
example, have taken Phye
los (+.:;
cf. chapter IV.+.B and appendix F). Herodotos alludes vaguely to a Thracian sojourn
(+.o.+), but the author of the Ath.Pol. states, among other things, that Peisistratos
moved rst to Rhaike
ne
me Philadai,
and their proximity and relationship to one another, see Antoniou +,,o; nn. +; and
:; and appendix A.
+o. Thuc. +.+:.+:; cf. Gomme +,, ++o+;; and Hornblower +,,+, ;.
+;. Hdt. o.; Paus. +..:; schol. Pind. Nem. :.+,; Plut. Sol. +o.:; Harpok. s.v. 'Eu-
uooxriov; Steph. Byz. s.v. 4ioiooi; and Markel. Vit.Thuc. Cf. How and Wells
+,+:, :.;o; Sourvinou-Inwood +,;, :+;+ (who denies the connection between
Aias and Philaios); Antoniou +,,o, ;,,+; and Parker +,,, +o+;. Cf. also nn. o,
o, and +;; and appendix C, n. ,.
+. On the Mycenaean remains at Brauron, see, for example, Coulton +,;o,
+oo, with bibliography; cf. Blackman +,,,:ooo, +; and :ooo:oo+, .The most
thorough source for the area of Brauron is Antoniou +,,o (though cf. Giuman +,,,).
For Philadai, the best and most informative is the (regrettably) still unpublished study
of Beck (+,;,). Cf. appendices A and B.
+,. Iakovidis (+,o, +) observes that the area of Perati was only sparsely settled
before LH IIIC, a fact that supports the conclusion that the Mycenaeans who used
the Perati necropolis immigrated hastily and in some numbers around the period
just before the general destruction of Mycenaean civilization ca. +:oo++o/:
B.C.E. He also notes (+o;) that the earliest grave pottery at Perati (Phase I) corre-
sponds in time to construction of the wall extension at Mycenae and the Cyclo-
pean road wall at the isthmus. These remains are sometimes taken to indicate that
the trouble that brought mass destruction to the Mycenaeans in the Peloponnesos
was approaching and that they there were preparing for the onslaught with new for-
tications. If that correlation is correctand there is still controversy about them
and what brought about the end of the Mycenaeansthen the arrival of the grave
users of Phase I at Perati, who seem to have been refugees, appears to be linked to
the same threat. Popham and Sackett (+,o, ) conclude that a considerable inux
of population occurred at Xeropolis and in southern Euboia at about the same
time (cf. Iakovidis +,o, +o;). This tends to corroborate the notion of mass move-
ment of Mycenaeans to destinations along the Attic and Euboic coasts because of
threat. Cf. Spitaels +,:, on the possibility of contemporary new settlers at Thorikos.
Cf. also n. :;.
:o. On Perati, see Iakovidis +,o. On the Peisistratid connection with Perati and
the tradition of migration to eastern Attika, see Sourvinou-Inwood +,;, :+ff. Cf.
also nn. +:+ and +, and appendix A. It is interesting to note that the pottery of
MH Mycenaeans of Braurons akropolis suggests contact with Mycenaean sites of the
Peloponnesos (cf. Blackman +,,,:ooo, +; and n. :).
:+. Osborne +,,o, . Desboroughs suggestion (+,o, ::) that the descendants
of the Mycenaean settlers in the area of Perati could have continued their way of life
for some time after the disappearance of their cultural artifacts makes a great deal of
sense: cf. nn. ::: and appendix A.
Notes to Pages .o.: :,
::. Cf.Tomlinson (+,,,, ;), who transmits the report of the excavation of a
cave in the area of Brauron containing the remains of bears and humans that are
twenty thousand years old. See also nn. ::.
:. Cf. Lloyd-Jones +,, ,; and Simon +,, and +o.Any argument that the
cult was imported after the Bronze Age would have to explain, among other things,
why a postBronze Age cult would involve Iphigeneia at all instead of another
name less implicated with and signicant for Mycenaean culture (cf.Antoniou +,,o,
:oo+:; and Giuman +,,,, +o:ff.). It also is dicult to accept that bear dancing,
for example, was grafted into the system of existing cult practices instead of surviv-
ing from a much earlier time. On the bear ritual (arkteia), see Antoniou +,,o,
+,::o; Sourvinou-Inwood +,,o; Cole +,,, ; and Giuman +,,,, o++. Cf. also
nn. :: and :.
:. Eur. Iph.Taur. +o:o;. On Artemis and Iphigeneia, see, for example, Lloyd-
Jones +,, ,+ff.; Dowden +,,, ,ff.; Antoniou +,,o, :oo+:; Kearns +,,, +o+ and
+o; and Giuman +,,,, +o:;,. Beck (+,;,, +) observes the potentially great age of the
Iphigeneia cave cult at Brauron, and of course that dovetails with the implied ancient-
ness of the arkteia (cf. Lloyd-Jones +,, ,+ ff.; Osborne +,,o, ; and nn. :::).
Are the Mycenaean psi gurines of Perati (Iakovidis +,o, +,),which most prob-
ably represented the divine nurse, prototypes for those discovered at Brauron in the
precinct of Artemis? Investigations have brought to light a middle Helladic building
(house?) at Brauron, within which was discovered pottery suggesting contact be-
tween Brauron and, among other places, Mycenaean sites of the Peloponnesos: cf.
Blackman +,,,:ooo, +; and n. +:.
The inhabitants of the inland deme Myrrhinous (modern Merenda; Traill +,o,
+:,), not far distant from Brauron, chiey worshiped Artemis Kolainis (schol.Ar. Birds
;; cf. Paus. +.+.; cf. appendix A, n. ).The sanctuary of Artemis Tauropoulos, again,
including Iphigeneia, was set on the beach at Halae Araphenides (modern Loutsa;
Traill +,o, +:), just north of Brauron.Artemis worship may also have predominated
among the coastal Euboians (cf. Paus. +.+., linking Artemis Amarysia
[Athmonia/Amarousion: cf. Traill +,o, +] with Amarynthos in Euboea [about ,
km south of Eretria]). And, of course, the cult of Artemis and Iphigeneia was en-
trenched farther up the coast at Aulis in Boiotia, very close to Euboia (cf. Giuman
+,,,, +o:ff). See also appendix A.
:. See nn. ::: and appendix A, n..
:o. On the association among Philadai, the Brauronian Artemis cult, and the Pei-
sistratidai, see appendix A, nn. ++.
:;. The theory of mass emigration from Athens to the hinterlands of Attika in
the eighth century B.C.E. (cf. Coldstream +,;;, +; Snodgrass +,o, :ff.; and White-
head +,o, ff.) possesses pronounced weaknesses.While the idea of dioecism is it-
self based on inconclusive archaeological data for the Geometric period, it discounts
or fails to consider signicant historical contraindications almost altogether (cf.
Whitehead +,o, ). It is much more dicult to believe that numerous inhabitants
of the eighth-century B.C.E. villages of Athens(cf.Whitley +,,+, o+) fanned out in
concert and on cue to the farther reaches of the mesogaia rather than that the indi-
genes who,Thucydides notes,always lived in the countryside (:.+o.+), coalesced in
their own numbers in villages increasing in size at the same time technology and
:o xo+rs +o r:trs :+:
communication were improving everywhere in the Greek world (cf. Snodgrass +,o,
,ff.; and Thomas and Conant +,,,, ;). Second, I am unsure why natives of Attika
could not have been joined by immigrants from outside of AttikaEuboia and the
western Cyclades stand forth as potential contributorsjust as the Boiotians were
joined, for example, by Hesiods father (apparently in the eighth century B.C.E.), orig-
inally from Kyme in Anatolia (Works and Days, oo; cf.West +,;, o) or even as
the Athenians were joined by the Gephyraioi, apparently from Euboia (Hdt. .;.+;
cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.:; cf. also n. :).Third, what other than distinctions per-
ceived by the Athenians could have produced the dichotomy between city folk and
the diakrioi/hyperakrioi (men of the hills) until the midsixth century B.C.E. (cf. nn.
o)? Fourth (and it relates to the last), there is no evidence of memory of any mass
movement outward from Athens during the Dark Ages, and that seems a very signi-
cant omission in view of the active memory of events of movements before the Dark
Ages (i.e., Ionian migrations to Athens, colonizing migrations from Athens, etc.).
Fifth, how could such rites as those of Artemis Brauronia, ancient even in Peisistratos
day (cf. Lloyd-Jones +,, ,; and n. ::), have been preserved, retaining some of their
obviously Neolithic aspects, without at least some inhabitants remaining continu-
ously in the vicinity from the end of the Bronze Age and carrying on the ancient rit-
ual? (Beck [+,;,, ::;] in fact notes that the major site of Poussi Kalogeri [Kyther-
ros?], :. km southwest of Brauron, was inhabited continuously very possibly from
Neolithic times. Even if this site were not the deme Kytherros, which Philochoros
mentions as one of Attikas ancient twelve cities, the Dodekapoleis [FrGrHist :,
F ,; cf.Traill +,o, ;+; and appendix A (and n. )], the memory of such habita-
tion indicates that the Athenians at least believed in the early and persistent habita-
tion of Attika in the area by indigenes.) These elements are not adequately dealt with
by such theorists as espouse dioecism. Archaeological data accompanied only by
speculation and theorizing are not enough of themselves to prove dioecism.
:. Certainly, Herodotos appears keen to specify aristocratic clans that had come
to Athens from elsewhere (cf. Immerwahr +,oo, ++;, n. ++,). Cf. n. :; (on immigrants
of the Archaic period) and n. o.
:,. Cf. Davies +,;+, .
o. On the Pylian myths, see nn. : and +. Of course, I am assuming, contra
Robertson (+,, :o), that the Athens-oriented Neleid myths involving Melanthos
and Kodros were in fact of some age by the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E.,
since claims were being made to anity well before (cf. Peisistratos, archon of
oo,o B.C.E. [cf. n. ; and appendix C.+.B., n. +]). But cf. Robertson +,, :;:
Peisistratus the tyrant was born in ca. ooooo B.C.E., or not long before or after.
But most assuredly the name Peisistratus did not then evoke any Neleid heritage. For
the archon of oo, B.C.E., a man born by the year ;oo at the very latest, was already
so named [!] (cf. also nn. , ;, and ). Of course, the name is better taken as proof of
the opposite of Robertsons assertionit is the name of Nestors son after all, made
most famous in the Odysseyand what he declares here. On the Philaios immigra-
tion myth and archaeological record, see nn. +:, +;, and o.
+. Hellanikos FrGrHist :, F : (cf. Jacoby +,b, III, B, II, +,ff. on the frag-
ment); Str. ,.+.;.Toepffer +,, :ff.; Frost +,o, o,;o; and Robertson +,, :off.,
n. +. Of course, this is a similar kind of demonstration (i.e., saving the city by ridding
Notes to Pages .,., :+
it of threat) to that which earned Oedipous the throne of Thebes (cf. Oed.Tyr. ff.,
,off.) Cf. nn. +: (on Diognetos) and +oo.
:. Hdt. .;o.+ (cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.:); Pherek. FrGrHist F +; and Str.
,.+.;. Cf.Toepffer +,, :off.; and Robertson +,, ::ff.
. Cf.Toepffer +,, :ff.; and Robertson +,, :off.
. Again, contra Robertson +,, :;, cf.Thomas and Conant +,,,, o, ;:; and
nn. o and o.The myths could reect, at least to some degree, real conditions of the
postBronze Age: certainly the Ionian migration myths from the same period are
based on a historical event, the memory of which persisted from the end of the
Bronze Age (Thuc. +.+:.; Gomme +,, ++,:o; Hornblower +,,+, o+; cf. also
Huxley +,oo, :ff.; and nn. +++:).
. Cf. Podlecki +,, ++. Figueira (+,,+, +;), in an effort to tie the Neleid tra-
dition of the Peisistratidai to colonization, misses its main thrust, which must have
been to achieve advantage(s) in politics at home. Cf. section .E.
o. Perhaps the most famous mythical repulse of invaders from the area of the
akropolis was that of the Amazons by the Athenians under Theseus:Aes. Eum. o,o;
Plut. Thes. :;; cf. Walker +,,b, ,, ooo. Of course, this, the myth of Eumol-
pos, and both Neleid myths underscore the Athenians fear of vulnerability to inva-
sion. Such abiding fear would surely have made the Kylonian seizure, assisted by alien
Dorians, horrifying to the Athenians: see section .A.:. (It appears that Athens
akropolis was not taken even at the end of the Bronze Age: see Hurwit +,,,, :.)
;. While it is possible that the Peisistratid/Neleid tradition was further empha-
sized by Peisistratos successor(s) or others for their own purposes, the tradition
beneted them only as a reection of Peisistratos war accomplishments, which were
decidedly not theirs.
. A similar attitude might be found in that of the English at the death of the
Black Prince noted by Thomas Walsingham (quoted from Tuchman +,;, :,):while
he lived they feared no enemy, even as he when he was present they feared no war-
like encounter. Of course, this image of redoubtability was won through Edwards
victory over the French at Poitiers, a turning point in the history of the two coun-
tries but, as a follow up to Crecy, a sea change for England. A similar feeling could
have affected the Athenians with regard to Peisistratos after Nisaia, a victory that en-
sured Athenian security by effectively containing Megarian aggression: see section
.A.D; chapter V; appendix B..
,. Aside from the testimony in Herodotos and other sources is the fact of the
Solonian context: Solon says that the Athenians listened to orators and conceded
power to them.Were we to know it from no other sources, Peisistratos would have
to have been a persuasive speaker were he to appeal at all to the Athenians. As it is,
context and other testimony converge here. Cf. Lavelle :ooo, o;; and chapter
III.:.A.:.
o. Even then Peisistratos may have said of himself that he warred, or rather was
forced to war, against his enemies (such as Megakles) rather than the Athenians, a fur-
ther spin on events.As we shall see, the campaign resulting in the victory at Palle
ne
was probably designed not to be viewed by the Athenians as waged against them but
against Peisistratoswicked enemies: see chapter IV.:.D.
+. Diog. Laert. +.; cf. Shapiro +,b, ,, n. ; Robertson +,, :; and Lavelle
:ooo, o;. Peisistratos was not alone in manipulating myth for advantage: we de-
:: xo+rs +o r:trs ::o
tect in Herodotos account of the marriage of Agariste (o.+:++) an apparent at-
tempt by the Alkmeonidai to portray the occasion and the victor, Megakles, in a
myth-heroic fashion: cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.++;; cf. McGregor +,+, :off.;
Fornara and Samons +,,+, +o+:; Vandiver +,,+, :;; and Parker +,,, +;,
::. It is impossible to say, on the present evidence, whether this propaganda is
contemporary or anachronized, however. Cf. chapter III, n. o and Appendix E.
Modern claims that Peisistratid myth-manipulation inuenced subjects and themes
on painted Attic pottery of the sixth century B.C.E. (most prominently by Boardman
[+,;:, +,;, and +,,]) seem to me to be based on little more than aesthetic inference
and ingeniousness but are actually more ingenious than they are likely to be correct:
cf. e.g., Cook (+,;), who is very rightly skeptical about the links. The main objec-
tion is that such propaganda is just too vague or oblique to achieve its desired pur-
pose and so becomes ineffective and even useless. How could anyone to whom the
pottery may have been given outside of Attika understand any of the so-called prop-
aganda values attached to the gures and themes? Indeed, things would have to have
been explained even to the Athenians. Propaganda requiring explanation is failed
propaganda. (On the controversy involving Peisistratos alleged use of Herakles, cf. also
Cavalier +,,,; Ferrari +,,,; Hanah +,,,;; and Brandt +,,;.)
While it is possible that the traditions of Neleid kinship were authentic (cf.
Toeppfer +,, ::o:;, n. :; Davies +,;+, ; and nn. +:+, +,), in view of the im-
portance the Athenians attached to such myths, they were obviously used for politi-
cal purposes: cf. section .E. Cromey (+,::, +) points out that connections to
groups such as the Neleids have an epic sense, a further attraction for their inventors.
Elected tyrants were not a rarity in Archaic Greece: Pittakos was elected by the
Mitylenaians (cf.Arist. Pol. +:a; Diog. Laert. +.;;;; How and Wells +,+:, +, ooo;
Epimenes by the Milesians [Nik. Dam. FrGrHist ,o, ]; cf. Periandros of Corinth
[Diog. Laert. +.o+; ,; (= Anth. Pal. ;.o+,)]).The Megarians vote of a bodyguard
to Theagenes might be said to have rendered him a de facto aisymne
te
s (elected
tyrant) (Arist. Pol. +oa, ::o), just as it might be said to have done to Peisistratos
later (see section .A.+; nn. ;;;; and chapter III.:.). On aisymne
rouchos in this context may be signicant but does not take proper account
of Pausanias lateness and the sources he may have used: cf. Lavelle +,,a.) The rec-
ollection apparently by Megarians of Megarian settlers in Salamis before the Athen-
ian takeover is, however, noteworthy.
;;. Flocks:Arist. Pol. +oa; bodyguard:Arist. Rhet. +;b. Contra Schachermeyr
+,, ++; Oost +,;, +; and de Libero +,,o, ::, there are in fact no real grounds
other than Tendenz for believing that Theagenes was a noble (e.g., Schachermeyr
++: versteht sich aber von selbst [!]). Association through marriage with the
noble Kylon does not prove it by a long chalk (cf. Legon +,+, ,). Cf. also nn. ;
and . On Theagenes and his tyranny, see Highbarger +,:;, +:o:o; Schachermeyr
+,; Berve +,o;, +.; Daverio Rocchi +,;+, :o and n. ;; Oost +,;, +ff.; and
de Libero +,,o, ::o. (Oosts attempt to set the sequence of bodyguard and slaugh-
ter [+,] seems a case of reverse logic: reaction does not come about from inaction.)
On the date of Theagenes, cf. Schachermeyr +,, +:; Berve +,o;, :.o; Jef-
fery +,;o, +o (c. oooo); Legon +,+, , (around oo); Figueira +,a, :;;
(took power by c. oo); and Hornblower +,,+, :o, who wisely cautions that
Theagenes is really dated in relation to Kylon.
;. Cf. de Libero +,,o, :::;. While we may agree with de Libero that the
similarities of Theagenes case with those of Peisistratos and Dionysios are somewhat
suspect (::;), we may disagree with her that Aristotles sheep (or ock) slaughtering
put his readers/listeners in mind of mad Aias: identication with a madman would
hardly bode well for a political upstart.Theagenes slaughter of the ocks could have
occurred in fact and could have made him popular: it need not have had anything to
do with the so-called social/revolutionary theory that she says (::o:;) was attached
to earlier tyrants by fourth-century B.C.E. authors such as Aristotle (cf. n. ;,).
Theagenes inclusion among other war leaders actually suggests that his path to the
tyranny was through wara path that makes a good deal of sense in view of condi-
tions affecting Megara, Athens, and of the career of Peisistratos.
Notes to Page ,, :,
;,. The attempt of Cawkwell (+,,) to discredit the information that portrayed
Archaic tyrants as popular fails to convince for lack of fair and adequate treatment of
the sources, particularly Aristotle. Cf. Hammer +,,, :. See also n. o.
o. Contra de Libero +,,o, :::;, n. : this information cannot be so easily dis-
missed. Cf. also Highbarger +,:;, +:; and Oost +,;, +,.
+. Cf. Jeffery +,;o, +o; and nn. ;;;.
:. Cf. Jeffery +,;o, +o.
. Figueira +,a, :o. Frenchs article (+,;, :ff.), while impressive and ad-
mirable in so many ways, nevertheless imposes a sort of macroeconomic determin-
ism on events in the Megarian war that is largely founded on anachronism. (Figueira
[:o] terms the treatment modernizing.) Rather than indicating Athens great naval
power (or at least a greater naval power than before [Stahl +,;, :o]), the drive to
occupy Salamis might argue exactly the opposite. Indeed, the war and nal absorp-
tion of Salamis by the Athenians hardly implies extensive Athenian naval power: the
island is quickly and easily reached from Attika or the Megarid by very small boat
(cf. Plut. Sol. ,.; Str. ,.+.+; and nn. ; and +:o). In fact, before Peisistratos Athens
seems to have lacked signicant naval strength to protect its coastline, especially
Phaleron.This lack was pronounced until the war with Aegina over a century later
(Hdt. .,+; Figuiera +,a, :,:). (Certainly, the Athenians needed to acquire greater
naval power to attack Nisaia but really only enough to do the job not rule the waves.)
Legons analysis of Salamis strategic location (+,+, +o+) and the consequences
of piracy seems somewhat naive on points. Piracy appears to have been all too com-
mon in early Greece, and Salamis was a nest for pirates from of old (cf. n. ;). Legon
seems to be quite correct, however, to point out that Salamisand indeed the war
were nally lost by the Megarians due to the collocation of superior resources, per-
haps above all the deployment of superior warriors late in the game, by the Atheni-
ans (cf. n. and section .D.:). Cf. also Highbarger +,:;, +:; Hopper +,o+,
:++;; and Stahl +,;, :o.
. Eleusis and the Thriasian Plain appear to have fallen fairly easily to (Dorian)
invaders: cf. Hdt..;; Thuc. :.+,.: (cf. Hornblower +,,+, :;:; and n. +o:). Cf. also
How and Wells +,+:, +.o; (on the Tellus story and border ghting for Eleusis; cf. n.
oo); Highbarger +,:;, +:;, +:; Hopper +,o+, :++; and Figueira +,a, :;ff. On the
linkage between Salamis and Eleusis, cf. LHomme-Wery +,,,, ++.
. Cf. Daverio Rocchi +,+, :o:;; Jeffery +,;o, +o; and Andrewes +,:b,
;o. Oosts harsh and summary appraisal of Theagenes (+,;, +,),Theagenes seems
to have understood nothing beyond opportunism and ambition, is misleading, not
in the least because it is based merely on the authors opinion, not on evidence.
o. On the attempted tyranny of Kylon, see Hdt. .;+ (How and Wells +,+:,
:.;,; this account, which surely derives from Alkmeonid sources, omits much de-
tail: cf. nn. ,:,); Thuc. +.+:o.+: (Gomme +,, :o; Hornblower +,,+,
:o:+o); Ath.Pol. + (Rhodes +,+, ;,); Plut. Sol. +:.+; and scholion ad Ar. Eqs.
c (accusing Kylon of hierosylia [temple robbery]). Stanton (+,,o, +;:o) conve-
niently assembles the passages and others pertinent to the Kylonian affair (cf. also Dil-
lon and Garland +,,, +). I do not take the details that Thucydides adds to be
legendary or otherwise untrustworthy (so Lang +,o;): cf. Moss +,o,, +; Okin +,,
+o; and n. ,:. On the Kylonian affair, cf. further Honigman +,::,Williams +,+; Berve
:oo xo+rs +o r:trs o
+,o;, +.+:; Moss +,o,, +:; Daverio Rocchi +,;+, :ff.; Lvy +,;; Legon
+,+, ,ff.;Andrewes +,:b, o;o; Lambert +,o; Oliva +,, o;Thomas +,,,
:;ff.; Fornara and Samons +,,+, ff.; Jordan +,,:, o;o; LHomme-Wery +,,o,
+:; de Libero +,,o, ,;Wallace +,,, +o+;; Harris-Cline +,,,; and Lavelle
:ooo, ;+;:. (Littman [+,,o, ;] terms the coup dtat a relatively minor inci-
dent!) Rhodes (+,;o, ;,ff.) offers perhaps the best short treatment. See nn. ;.
;. Euseb. Ol. (= oo, B.C.E.); Paus. +.:.+. Gomme (+,, :) is surely
correct in stating that the coordination derives from the Olympic victor lists and I
take it as secure on that basis. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +; Stanton +,,o, :o; and Hornblower
+,,+, :o. See also n. .
. Kylons attempted tyranny will have occurred after his Olympic victory (and
Theagenes tyranny: cf. Jeffery +,;o, +o; and n. ;;) but before Drakons reforms in
the archonship of Aristaichmos in o:+ B.C.E. (cf. Ath.Pol. .+; Euseb. Ol. ,.; Cadoux
+,, ,:; Rhodes +,+, +o,; and Develin +,,, +). Since Kylon seized the akropolis
in an Olympic year, the range of possibilities is oo (cf.Andrewes +,:b, o,:oo or
some immediately succeeding Olympiad), o: (cf. Busolt +,o, :.:o; cf. also Mor-
gan +,,o, +,o:ca. o+), o: (cf. Legon +,+, ,:it can scarcely have occurred later
than . . .), and o: B.C.E. It is not possible to x the date precisely on the present
evidence: cf. Gomme +,, :o; Davies +,;+, ;o;+; and Hornblower +,,+,
:oo. Some scholars assume that oo is too soon after the Olympic victory (e.g.,
Gomme +,, :), others that o: is too late (cf. Stanton +,,o, :o). Still others, how-
ever, in view of Herodotos testimony alluding to Kylons confederates as youthful
(cf. n. ,) designate either oo or o: as the year of the attempt, assuming that the
confederates could not be termed youthful by the later dates: cf. Freeman +,:o,
+o; Lvy +,;, +; and Legon +,+, ,.This is all very tenuous. Jacoby (Atthis +,,,
oo, n. ;;) synchronizes the attempt with the Olympic victory, although his synchro-
nism is not persuasive and has not been widely followed. The consensus dates (oo
or o: B.C.E.), which I adopt here, are at least supported by a presumption that Ky-
lon would have capitalized sooner rather than later after his Olympic victory.Admit-
tedly, either of the dates is recommended by no more than such logic (cf. Lvy +,;,
+, n. o; Jacoby +,,, oo, n. ;;; and Hornblower +,,+, :o), and really any of the
four are admissible. (Lvys severe downdating [+,;, i.e., Kylons Olympic victory
was ,,,; B.C.E., his coup ,;,o], however, is not, for its less appealing logic de-
pends on a desire merely to narrow the gaps in time between Kylon and his coup,
the pollution of the Alkmeonidai, and the intervention of Solon to expiate it. It is
ultimately based on restatement of the rather special pleas of Wilamowitz and
Lenschau. For it, far too much credence is given the chronological framework of the
lost introductory chapters of Ath.Pol. in conjunction with that of Plutarchs Solon.
And the latter is hardly to be taken as chronologically precise.) Cf. French (+,;,
++), who briey but very lucidly and effectively summarizes the problems.
Cf. also Harris-Cline +,,,, o,, n. ; and Lavelle :ooo, ;+, n. .
,. Thuc. +.+:o.: o or (sc. Kylon) aoo tr tou Oroyrvou ouvoiv omv xoi
tou iou ovoarioo (Having gotten a force from Theagenes and persuaded a
band of friends . . .; cf. schol. ad Ar. Eq. b [which looks to derive ultimately from
Thucydides]). Other adherents: a band of age mates(not necessarily youthful) (Hdt.
.;+.+: rtoipipv tmv piximtrmv) and (the much inferior) coconspirators (Plut.
Notes to Page , :o+
Sol. +:.+: tou ouvmoto). Obviously, they were not all of the same genos, although
Kylons brother accompanied him at the time of his attempt (Thuc. +.+:o.++); they
did not amount to a stastio
n naukraro
n naukraro
n naukraro
n, which will remain unsettled at least for the present time (Hdt. .;+.:;
see, e.g.,Williams +,+;Wst +,;; Daverio Rocchi +,;+, :;ff.; Billigmeier and Dus-
ing +,+; Gabrielson +,; Figueira +,o, :;o;; Lambert +,o; Lambert +,,,
::ff., ; French +,;, ;; Stanton +,,o, ++,, n. ; Hornblower +,,+, :o,;
Jordan +,,:; de Libero +,,o, o;, n. +o; and Wallinga :ooo; cf. Dillon and Garland
+,,, ;; Harding +,,, +o; and McInerney +,,, :). It seems quite clear,
however, that Herodotos (or rather his source) was protecting the Alkmeonidai by
naming the prutaneis as responsible for the sphage
(cf. n. ,:).
,o. On the Diasia, see Simon +,, +:ff. Cf. also Gomme +,, :; Hornblower
+,,+, :o;; and Parker +,,o, ;;;. On the timing of the ancient Olympic festival, cf.
Morgan +,,o, +:.
,;. Cf. Andrewes +,:b, ;o; and Frost +,, :o.The popular nature of the re-
sistance to Kylon is underscored by Thucydides, who says that the Athenians opposed
Kylon pande
mei (+.+:o.;; cf. Lavelle :ooo, ;:, n. ,). Thucydides reference to the
:o: xo+rs +o r:trs o,
popular opposition to Kylon is certainly not an irrelevant detail (contra Gomme
+,, :). Cf.Wallace +,,, +;.
,. Cf. Legon +,+, +oo; and Lavelle :ooo, off. Arrowsmiths speculation (+,
;;) that Theagenes will have hoped his son-in-law would sway the Athenian think-
ing in Megaras favor, perhaps rst through persuasion and later through the use of
force in the form of tyranny, is contrary to the accounts we have.Theagenes supply
of troops to Kylon and the latters coup show that both had adopted violence and
coercion as methods for obtaining their ends from the outset. Gentler persuasion was
not part of the plan, and of course that lack contributed to its undoing. See n. ,,.
,,. Contra Bengston and Bloedow (+,, ;o), Kylons coup did not fail ulti-
mately not least because the Attic small farmers remained loyal to the noble families
[!]: it failed because the Athenians reacted instantaneously to the news of invasion
of the akropolis and a crucial part of them remained resolved to defeat the invaders:
cf. Hignett +,:, ;; Stahl +,;, :o; de Libero +,,o, ; and n. ,;. A gauge of sorts
giving some idea as to what fueled the Athenian reaction to the occupation of the
akropolis by the Megarians may perhaps be found in the later occupation by the Spar-
tans under Kleomenes.The priestess of Athena said to the Spartan Kleomenes as he
walked into the temple of the goddess (Hdt. .;:.): `O ri vr Aoxrooio vir, aoiv
mri por roi0i r to iov ou yo 0ritov Amiruoi aoirvoi rv0outo. He
answered that he was an Achaian not a Dorian, implying that there was no pol-
lution. But popular opinion held otherwise, and we should not forget that the Athe-
nians considered all of the akropolis Athenas own city. (Cf. How and Wells +,+:,
:.,, who nevertheless miss the racial implications of the prohibition.) In any case,
the failure of Kleomenes enterprise at Athens was the direct result of general Athen-
ian hostility to it: cf. Hdt. .;:.. Cf. also Lavelle +,,, +o, n. o. It is surely for much
the same reason that Isagoras and his foreign allies failed to hold Athens at the end
of the sixth century, although they held the akropolis, as did Kylon and his allies (see
nn. , and +o+). Such statements as the Athenians in c. oo were not yet ready for a
tyrant (Hornblower +,,+, :o; cf. Beloch +,+, +., o:ff.) seem to be based on no
more than hindsight (cf. Gomme +,, :,). Cf. chapter III, n. ,.
+oo. Cf. Legon +,+, +oo.
+o+. Cf. Berve +,o;, +.. Of course, Berve, like other modern scholars, is mis-
led by examples of foreign occupation occurring much later and outside of Athens.
On the short-lived Spartan-backed regime of Isagoras, see nn. , and ,,; on the Spar-
tan-backed regime of the Thirty Tyrants, see Ath.Pol. . (cf. Rhodes +,+, ).
+o:. Hopper +,o+, :++; Legon +,+, +o+. In the event of Salamis possession by
Megara, Eleusis was again vulnerable to attack by land and sea (cf. Highbarger +,:;,
+:; and Legon +,+): see n. oo.
+o. Cf. Legon +,+, +oo.
+o. I see no reason why the failure of Cylons coup [would] have badly shaken
Theagenes regime such that it may not have survived many years (so Legon +,+,
+o+): we do not know the duration of Theagenes regime, and we may not say in any
way conclusively what was done or not done (cf. Legon +,+, +o:, n. ; and Figueira
+,a, :;;). On the other hand, the aborted coup at Athens was Kylons failure, not
Theagenes, who had risked little and apparently got all his warriors back intact (cf.
n. ,). Moreover, the Megarians were able to inict a signicant defeat on the Athe-
nians around the same time: cf. n. +o,.
Notes to Page , :o
Although we may imagine that the Athenian aristocracy in general was opposed
to tyranny at Athens (cf. n. ), the Megarian aristocracy need not have been uni-
formly opposed to it on principle, to Theagenes, or to his tyranny at Megara (Legon
+,+, +o:), especially since advantages were possible for aristocrats working with
the tyrants in the fast-changing Greek world of the seventh and sixth centuries
B.C.E. Aristocrats did in fact make marriage alliances with social inferiors such as
tyrants. (At Megara,Theognis scoffs at the intermarriage of nobles and outlanders:
+,:W [Campbell +,o;, ;,; Gerber +,;o, :o]; cf. n. :.) Of course,
the signal example of this for Athens is Megakles alliance with Kleisthenes of
Sikyon through Agariste (Hdt. o.+o.:; see also chapter III, n. o). In the after-
math of the Kylonian affair, the complicity of the new regime with Megara may
have been only apparent: indeed, its primary concern was to maintain its power,
and this it seems to have done by temporarily ending hostilities with Megara (see
nn. ++;+,).
+o. There is perhaps some oblique information by which to gauge the Atheni-
ans revulsion at the Kylonian pollution.At the opening of Sophokles Oedipous Tyran-
nos (+;), the Theban chorus observes symptoms of its citys aiction and is dis-
mayed because, as it later learns from Kreon (,,), an unexpiated curse derived
from murder is blighting the land.Thebes is in turmoil; its citizens are frightened and
demoralized and desperately seeking relief when they approach Oedipous (o).
The polluter must be driven off the land (+oo+o+). Sophokles did not create such
scenes in a vacuum, and what he portrays might allude to conditions at Athens in the
wake of the Alkmeonid crime. (He certainly introduced into his plays what the Athe-
nians would recognize: cf. appendix H; and Knox [+,o], who observes the connec-
tions that Sophokles made between the plague depicted in Oedipous and the real one
aicting the Athenians during the Archidamian War [::: B.C.E.]. Cf. also Dawe
+,: ad loc.)
Guilt, demoralization, and the assumption that god was no longer with them very
likely caused the Athenians to shrink from battle with the Megarians after the Ky-
lonian sphage
: cf. n. +:o. (Cf. also. Plut. Sol. +:.o [in relation to the long-term effects
of the Kylonian pollution]: xoi ooi tivr rx orioiooiovio oo xoi oooto
xotrir tpv aoiv, oi tr ovtri oyp xoi iooou ororvou xo0omv ao-
oivro0oi oio tmv irmv pyoruov [see also nn. +oo;]. Of course, there may well
be later embellishment in these comments.)
+oo. Thuc. +.+:o.+: (Gomme +,, :;:); Ath.Pol. + (Rhodes +,+, ;,ff.);
Plut. Sol. +:.. Cf. Frost +,, :o;; and Fornara and Samons +,,+, o. Ostraka
cast against Megakles, the son of Hippokrates, in the early os B.C.E. recalls the Ky-
lonian crime: some voters label him oritro; one even calls him Kuovr<i>o
(cf. Brenne +,,, +o; and Matthaiou +,,:,, +;,). (On the connection between
oitpio/oitpioi and the Kylonian crime, see schol. ad Ar. Eq. .) Although
these ostraka were cast in the wake of Marathon and the alleged treason of the Alk-
meonidai (Hdt. o.+:+:; cf. Lavelle +,,, :, n. ::) and so reect the rancor of the
time, the recollection of the Kylonian crime, in a sense out of context for the recent
treason, provides a good index of its durability over time and its political usefulness
for opponents of the Alkmeonidai even well into the fth century B.C.E.: of course,
the Spartans at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war tried to invoke the curse to
destabilize Perikles regimeand Athens:Thuc. +.+:;.+.
:o xo+rs +o r:tr o
+o;. Ath.Pol. + and Plut. Sol. +:.: (cf. Rhodes +,+, [although he pru-
dently observes that the factualness of the indications must remain uncertain]; Stan-
ton +,,o, :; and Hornblower +,,+, :+o). Cf. nn. +o,.
+o. Cf. nn. +oo; and +o,. It is surely reasonable to assume, on the basis of
Thucydides testimony (+.+:o.+:), that the Athenians reacted to the original pollu-
tion either immediately or, as seems more likely, not long afterward and then again
in o, when Kleomenes expelled the seven hundred hearths (Hdt. .;.+) along
with Kleisthenes. It is possible that the source for the Ath.Pol. and Plutarch, which I
take to be ultimately a common one (an Atthis perhaps? cf. Rhodes +,+, ++),
anachronized the proceedings involving the second trial and purication in the
time of Isagoras and Kleomenes to the rst involving Myron (cf. Gomme +,,
:;:). Indeed, it seems hard to believe that a full-blown, formal trial would have
to have been convened in the later seventh century B.C.E. to decide guilt when the
Alkmeonidai had been generally observed by everybody in agrante (cf. n. +o). Cf.
Rhodes +,+, +. On Kleomenes invasion, cf. nn. , and ,,.
+o,. Plut. Sol. +:.+: to or Kumvriov oyo pop rv rx aoou oirtoottr tpv
aoiv . . . and +:.:: rx toutou or xp0rvtr rvoyri rioouvto xoi tmv Ku-
mvrimv oi ariyrvorvoi aoiv poov iouoi, xoi otooiooovtr ori oirtrouv
ao tou oao tou Mryoxrou. (We note in these passages that imperfect verb
forms are used uniformly. Of course, one could argue that this is nothing but the con-
sistency one expects in following an account mistaken for factual.) +:.: toutoi or
toi toooi xoi Mryor mv ouvrai0rr vmv, o ar oov tr Ni ooiov oi
'A0pvoi oi, xoi Eooivo rraroov ou0i. Cf.Toepffer +,;, :.
According to Pausanias (+.o.) the beak of an Athenian ship (embolon) was ded-
icated in the temple of Zeus at Megara. It had come from a victory over the Athe-
nians off Salamis, apparently before Solons intervention in the war (cf. section
.A.). If the information is valid, the victory might then be dated after the Kylon-
ian slaughter and could be taken to spell the end to Athenian control of the island.
(Could this suggest that the Athenians sought new technology to gain tactical advan-
tages over the Megarians and could the technology [or ships] have been supplied by
Corinthian allies? Cf. Thuc. +.+.:; Hornblower +,,+, :; and Legon +,+,
+:::.) The testimonium is suspect, however, for triremes were not apparently used
by the Athenians as early as the end of the seventh century B.C.E. Cf. Piccirilli +,;,
; and ++; Figueira +,a, :o; and Taylor +,,;, ::, :o.
++o. 'Eari or oxo v tivo xoi ouorp ao rov oi r v o otri ari tp
Eooivimv vpoou Mryoruoi aorouvtr rrxoov, xoi voov r0rvto ptr
yo oi tivo p t' ri ari v ou 0i m p tp v ao iv o vtiaoiri o0oi tp Eooi vo, p
0ovotm piouo0oi xt. Cf. Linforth +,+,, o; Freeman +,:o, +o,;+; Legon
+,+, +::; and Taylor +,,;, ::o. See also nn. ++++.
+++. Cf. Plut. Sol. .+; Cic. de oc. +.o; Justin :.;.,; Polyain. +.:o.+:; Dem.
+,.:; and schol. ad Il. :.+. Freeman (+,:o, +;+) suggests that the story of the de-
cree arose from Solons calling himself a herald in +.+ of the fragment (cf. Lefkowitz
+,+, o; and Robertson +,,, oo, n. +): that he did so implied the threat of pun-
ishment; the self-designation gave him immunity from bodily harm. By the same to-
ken, the madness story can have evolved from the same inference: there was a threat
of capital punishment, and only a madmanor a sane one feigning madnesswould
risk death.There is no reason to believe, with Lefkowitz, that the circumstances of
Notes to Page ,: :o
[Solons] performance were inferred wrongly from his poetry: Plutarch had, or at
least could have had, more of Solons poetry, and indeed Salamis, before him when
he wrote what he did, and we neednt force all of his poetry solely into sympotic (or
other) venues: cf. n. ++. Nor is the curious deconstruction of the episode by Robert-
son (+,,, ooo+), devolving upon Solons cap, at all persuasive: there is far too
much space to ll in between Robertsons lines (cf. nn. , ;, , and o). Deception
was clearly part of the political game in Archaic Athens, and Solon was party to it: cf.
Lavelle :ooo, o, and n. ; cf. also Hammer +,,, ,ff. See also nn. ++:+, +:: and
+:; and chapter III, n. :.
++:. Cf. Freeman +,:o, +;o; Frost +,, :,; Anhalt +,,, +::; and Taylor +,,;,
::o. Legons assertion (+,+, +:) that the law was directed at Salaminians displaced
by the Megarians does not account for the response to Solons poem, that is, renewal
of the war.This shows that there were many other Athenians who shared his senti-
ments (see n. ++).The anti-Alkmeonid group certainly need not have been work-
ing directly in Megaras interests (so French +,;, :+; cf. nn. +o and ++) and so trea-
sonously to undermine Athens security by enforcing the law.The Athenians generally
could have been reacting genuinely to the carnage of the Kylonian agos and/or a
subsequent military disaster involving Salamis (cf. nn. +o, ++, ++;, and +:o) and the
politicians who replaced the Alkmeonids simply capitalizing on those reactions. In-
deed, if there was such a law prohibiting further talk about war with Megara over
Salamis, it had to be popular at least for some time to be effective. It could have been
passed in the wake of the Kylonian affair or, as I think it likelier, a short time after-
ward in the wake of a major defeat (but cf. Freeman +,:o). See also n. ++.
++. Solon Frs + W (cf. Gerber +,;o, +). Cf. Linforth +,+,, o+ (of two
minds about the account in Plutarch: legendary and yet not to be rejected unre-
servedly), :,o; Freeman +,:o, +o+o:; and Taylor +,,;, :. Athenian law: Justin
:.;.; (= Ephoros); Plut. Sol. .+; cf. French +,;, :+; Sealey +,oo, +;+; Andrewes
+,:b, ;;; Frost +,, :,; Dillon and Garland +,,, o;o. Taylors case
(+,,;, ::o) that the word Eooivortoi (= Salamis-abandoners: West +,,,
;) in F :, , does not connote Athens control of Salamis before Solon I do not nd
convincing. First of all, Eooivortoi does suggest possession and then loss, as if
from ones grasp: it actually implies the opposite of xotr riv (to control: cf.
oipi [Il. +:.::+, etc.; cf. LSJ s.v. oipi I.:]); second, Solons allusion to hard dis-
grace (F , :: orao v t' oi oo), that is, something surpassingly shameful that had
already overtaken the Athenians, does not imply defeat in any skirmish or minor ac-
tion but rather a major defeat, which resulted in such hard disgrace (this is a cru-
cial omission in Linforth +,+,, +: and n. :, who attempts to counter Belochs ar-
gument [+,+, +o] for Athens prior claim to Salamis); third,Taylors statement (:o,
n. :o) that all other suggestions found of Athenian loss in the sources are themselves
suspect because they may be no more than extrapolations from Solon is itself sus-
pect, since it seems to be based only on Solons extant poetry rather than what the
ancients (e.g., Demosthenes +,.::, the author of the Ath.Pol.) might have had that
we do not (see n. +++).We cannot say that Solon was not more explicit about things
in poems that we do not possess. Demosthenes the orator, for example, can have had
Salamis before him entire when he referred to Solon and Salamis: he certainly had
other Solonian texts: cf. F (= Dem. +,.:). Finally there are some archaeological
:oo xo+rs +o r:trs +:
grounds for believing that Salamis was within Athens cultural sphere as early as the
Submycenaean period and could have belongedto it: cf.Thomas and Conant +,,,,
o:ff. Cf. also nn. o, ++, and ++;. Bakaoukas :oo+ tries to connect Solon with Salamis
by birth but pays no attention to the relative merits of sources. Cf. n. +,.
++. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +.
++. Solon may have been between thirty and forty years of age at the time of
his recitation of Salamis (cf. Davies +,;+, ::), and if this is true it would not be
unreasonable to think that his sentiments for war and the approval they received de-
rived from the passage of time and the dimming of fears for the Kylonian crime and
the serious defeat the Athenians seem to have suffered in its wake (cf. nn. ++:+). In
that case, the poem will have most impressed and inspired a younger generation kept
clear of war by the post-Kylonian faction and come to ower in the period between
that severe setback to the Athenians, which apparently followed Kylons attempt and
Solons debut. Cf. nn. +o,, ++, and +::.
++o. Cf. French +,;, :+. Cf. also n. +o.
++;. Some of the enageis (polluted) can have fallen in a battle for Salamis just af-
ter the Kylonian affair. (See n. +o,.) Surely it would not be amiss to consider that the
Alkmeonidai, in the wake of the slaughter, prosecuted the war for Salamis (or sought
to defend the island: cf. nn. ++:+) if only to rally the Athenians around them and
to distract attention from their crime.We certainly expect the Alkmeonids to be war
leaders and, if they survived the Kylon affair politically at least in the short term, to
lead the way into battle against Megara in retribution for the invasion under Ky-
lon. Signs point to a serious defeat around this time (cf. nn. +o,+) and, if the Alk-
meonidai were the Athenian war leaders during such a defeat, it is surely possible that
several of them were left dead on the eld.That would help to explain why some of
the guilty dead Alkmeonidai were later exhumed and their bones cast beyond the
borders of Attika, especially if we imagine that the expulsions from Athens took place
no long time after the Kylonian crime. Of course, that defeat and those deaths would
have further enfeebled the Alkmeonidai, making them even easier prey to their en-
emies. See nn. +++,.
++. Who were they? They may have been aristocratic, perhaps the Kephissian
Plain landholders and their farmer adherents who had the most to lose during inva-
sions or raids by the Megarians, just as they did from the Spartans during the Pelo-
ponnesian war. (Perhaps these are the ones who were later centered around Lykour-
gos, the son of Aristolades [Hdt. +.,.; cf. Lavelle :ooo, ;;o]; see also chapter
III.:.A..) Contrary to Plut. Sol. +:, although the conclusion was understandably
based on outcomes, the anti-Alkmeonid party can hardly be characterized as the
surviving Kylonians (cf. French +,;; and Holladay +,;;, :), since they would not
have been politically viable in the aftermath. (Really, who survived to lead them?)
Kylon had departed Athens alive (Thuc. +.+:o.+o) and was not recalled, reinstated, or
for that matter involved in Athens affairs thereafter from all we know: his crime af-
ter all was treason (prodo
gie
gos/strate
gos is a
very logical term to describe an army leaderand could have superseded older, now
obsolete terms (e.g., polemarchos) precisely because of the changes wrought by the
Megarian war: see n. +.
+. Cf. Kinzl +,;,a, :; and n. +:. On the relationship of the archon polemar-
chos to the elected strate
ne
sos
[+.;], but this is obviously wrong [cf. Hdt. .,. +:; and, e.g., Figueira +,,+, +ff.].
This is surely another case of a makeover from Peisistratos to Solon.)
++. Cf. Gomme +,, +oo; and Hornblower +,,+, o.
+:. On Thuc. .+o, cf. Hornblower +,,+, +,:o. On the Peisistratidai and
Delos, see Fornis Vaquero +,,:; and appendix G. On Herodotos +.o.:, cf. How and
Wells +,+:, :..
+. Cf.Toepffer +,;, :o:+; Parker +,, +o; and Hornblower +,,+, o.
+. Dorians unwelcome: see n. ,,. Of course, it is not impossible that Peisistratos
examined or had examined the graves taken up on Delos as to content, as perhaps
he had done already on Salamis. See appendix G.
+. Cf. n. +;.
+o. Hdt. .,o.+.The connection between Peisistratos part in the war and Spar-
tan arbitration is alluded to by Andrewes (+,:a, ,;). Of course, this introduces the
question of chronology affecting the Spartan arbitration: cf. Piccirilli +,;, o. It
is of course quite possible that Spartan intervention is complete ction: cf. n. +;.
+;. Cf. Hdt. .;:. (and n. ,,). Cf. also Figuiera +,a, o:.
+. oo tioxovtoou ouaooarouop uoiooo0oi tp Eooivi xoto
pp v tivo ao tp v Eu oiov o aor aouoov. Martina (+,o, ,), obelizes
Euoiov, offering two variants, Niooiov [Sint.] and Ouoitioo [Wil.] (cf.Toepffer
+,;, ,+o). While I understand the discomfort that the reading Euoiov causes,
there is no good reason to obelize. Figueira (+,a, :) observes that the mention
of a triakontor points toward an early date and an improvised sortie. Cf. also nn.
+,o,+.
+,. Cf. Str. ,.+.+.
+,o. Soph. F +, (Nauck) (= Str. ,.+.o) describes the diakria as the garden lying
opposite to Euboia. Cf. Lavelle :ooo, ,;, n. ,; and Figueira (+,a, :, n.), whose
suggestion, that Solons action depended on his deciphering the cryptic language of
an oracular response, is ingenious.
Notes to Pages o, :;
+,+. It could be said that Philaios, when he came to eastern Attika, anchored off-
shore facing Euboia and that the link with such a phrase could be through him, a
Salaminian.As retromigrating descendants of Philaios to Salamis, the Athenians would
then be hearkening back to the original migration from Salamis. Of course any such
political spin propaganda is much more reasonably originated with Peisistratos, an
inhabitant of the eastern Attic region, than with Solon. Cf. n. +;.
+,:. Cf. Wilamowitz +,, +.:o;ff.; Highbarger +,:;, +, n. :o, and +o, n.
; and Figueira +,a, ::. On the discreditation of the Peisistratids, see Lavelle +,,,
:;ff. Stahls speculation (+,;, :oo)Obgleich Peisistratos auch Salamis als einen
Teil seines persnlichen Aussenbesitzes betrachtet haben etc.seems unwarranted,
since there is no hint of personal aggrandizement in otherwise hostile sources.
+,. Solon is identied as a Salaminian by Diogenes Laertios (+.o:), but the
identication is at least as old as the fourth century B.C.E.: Aristotle reports, incred-
ibly in Plutarchs estimation (Plut. Sol. :. [= F ]), that Solons ashes were scat-
tered over the island. In fact, the identication of Solon with Salamis and the ashes
scattering is at least as old as the Athenian comic poet Kratinos (cf. Linforth +,+,,
o,; Freemam +,:o, +,; and Legon +,+, +:). A statue of Solon was set up no
later than the early fourth century in the agora of Salamis (cf. Dem. +,.:+; Aesch.
+.:; and Anth.Pal. ;.o). On the evidence, Solon was of the old Athenian nobility
(cf. Davies +,;+, :), and in view of Salamis political marginality later it seems
quite unlikely that Solon would have reached the Athenian oces he did as a
Salaminian. On the other hand, an invented connection to Salamis would have
served Solon and been readily accepted by the Athenians. Of course, the connec-
tion could well have been based for them on nothing more than F +W and Solons
involvement with Salamis during the Megarian war: see nn. ++ and +:. Cf.
Toeppfer +,;.
cn:r+rr iii
+. Archonship of Komeas: Ath.Pol. +.+. Cf. Rhodes +,+, :o+; and Chambers
+,,o, +,,. On this date and the relative date of the victory at Nisaia, see appendices
A and D.
:. ou x m v tou to aooivr oovto Xi mvo ari oro0oi 0r riv to v Iaaoxo tro
yrvro0oi oi rto touto tov Hrioiototov toutov, o otooioovtmv tmv ao-
o mv xoi tm v r x tou aroi ou 'A0pvoi mv, xoi tmv rv aorotrmto Mryoxro
tou 'Axr mvo, tm v or r x tou aroi ou Auxou you tou 'Aiotooi orm, (sc. o
Hrioiototo) xotoovpoo tpv tuovvioo pyrir titpv otooiv, ouro or
otooim to xoi tm o ym tm v u aroxi mv aooto povo toi toio or tmoti oo
rmutov tr xoi piovou poor r tpv oyopv to ruyo m rxarruym tou r-
0ou, oi iv rouvovto r oyov p0rpoov oaorooi op0rv, rorrto tr tou op-
ou uoxp tivo ao ou tou xup ooi, ao trov ru ooxip oo r v tp ao
Mryor o yrvor vp ototpyi p , Ni ooio v tr r m v xoi o o o aooro rvo
ryo o r yo. o or op o o tm v 'A0pvoi mv r oaotp0ri , r omxr oi tm v o otm v
xotoro ovoo toutou oi oouooi rv oux ryrvovto Hrioiototou, xo-
uvpooi or umv yo xouvo rovtr riaovto oi oaio0r. ouvraovootovtr
or outoi oo Hrioiototm roov tpv oxoaoiv. Cf. Ath.Pol. +..+.+; Plut.
Sol. o; and Diod. Sik. +.,.o (these, including of course the rst, are almost com-
:; xo+rs +o r:trs oo
pletely derivative from Herodotos account and of limited historical value: cf. nn.
::o). Cf.Turner +, :o:;; Creuzer and Baehr +o, +::o; Stein +, o;o,;
How and Wells +,+:, +.o:; Rhodes +,+, +:o+ (on Ath.Pol.); McNeal +,o,
+:; Stanton +,,o, ,+, (on Herodotos), ,o,, (on Ath.Pol. ++), +oo+o+
(on Plutarch o) (all with translations); Fornara and Samons +,,+, ++;; and Lavelle
:ooo, +:, nn. +: (for further textual bibliography and commentary on +.,. [the
parties section]). See also n. +o+.
. The treatment of Peisistratos rst attempt at tyranny in this chapter is a ver-
sion of that found in Lavelle +,,+, +,,, and especially :ooo. The latter article ap-
peared in Classic et Mediaevalia ++o:, and I thank the editors and publishers for their
kind permission to draw on it.
. Cf. Lavelle +,,+, +; +,,, ,o; and :ooo, ,, n. +o. Cf. also How and Wells +,+:,
+.o+; and Bencsik +,,, ,, n. .
. A notable exception is Kinzl +,,. Cf. also Sayce +, :, n. (who appears
also to dissent).
o. Cf. Sealey +,oo; Lewis +,o, :::o; Bengston and Bloedow +,, ;; Frost
+,,o, ; Manville +,,o, +,oo and n. ;; Stein-Hlkeskamp +,,, +,o and n.
:; and Meier +,,, .
;. Cf. Hopper +,o+, esp. :off.; Berve +,o;, +.o; (geographical/personal); An-
drewes +,:a, ,,, esp. ,;; Stahl +,;, ;; Ellis and Stanton +,o, esp. ,;,;
Stanton +,,o, , (aristocratic/regional); Stein-Hlkeskamp +,,, ++:; Fornara
and Samons +,,+, ++;; and de Libero +,,o, ;.
. Cornelius +,:,, +:+, esp. ++; (social/political); Schachermeyr +,;b, +o+
(social/economic); Hignett +,:, +o,++: (political/economic); French +,;,
:o, esp. :+:; French +,, (personal/social/economic); Ehrenberg +,;,
;; (a combination of regional and social conicts, clan feuds, and ambitions of
individual leaders); Moss +,o,, ;o+ (regional and aristocratic character for plain
and coast, social [= de
rimoi] in
opposition to the de
rimoi had to
have had adherents among the hoi polloi to have been at all viable as a political group-
ing, and the lines of Solons contemporary Theognis (;, +,:) suggest a po-
tent sociopolitical mix at Megara based on nothing more than a shared interest in
Notes to Pages ,.,, :;;
chre
mos according to
Solon. Contra Anhalt +,,, ,,, n. , it is impossible to agree that Solon seems to
use the word (sc. de
mos could not have forced the so-called Solonian crisis, would not have
been addressed by Solon so frequently, or would have been the recipients of the be-
nets of any of Solons reforms unless it possessed at least some political weight: cf.
nn. ,o.As it is, the de
mos in Solon
F , ll. o (cf. n. ). Rhodes (+,+, ,) notes the ambiguity of the term de
mos.
On Solonian democracy cf.Wallace +,,.
+. Cf. Fr. c, in which Solon addresses the wealthy in the exclusive second-per-
son plural and the nonwealthy in the inclusive rst-person plural; and Fr. +. For what
it is worth, AP states that Solon xoi om oiri tpv oitiov tp otoorm ovoatri
toi aouoioi (.). Cf. also David +,, +.
:. Cf. n. . At Xenophon (Mem. .:.;,), de
mos ex-
pectations: cf. nn. and ). Promises made to the de
rimoi,
:; xo+rs +o r:trs ;;
however, for a tyranny to be established (cf. Holladay +,;;, o), and they are unlikely
to have urged it on Solon. Solon, himself an aristocrat, equates tyranny with undue
advantage for the kakoi (Fr. , ll.;,), an equation that must eliminate the gno
rimoi
as serious sponsors of tyranny for him. Cf. also chapter II, n. .
;. Cf. Frs. , +o, +;: (ouvoooi I take to mean meetings or assemblies,
its root sense, not associations [so Campbell +,o;, :] or conspiracies [so Ger-
ber +,;o, +]); o, :; and o, +:. Cf. also Kinzl +,,, ;.
. Frs. ; c (monition to those with megas nous [the gno
ma [= de
mos]); :,
(justications for failing to become tyrant: these would not reasonably have been
needed for the gno
ma [= de
mos]).
,. For what it is worth, the Ath.Pol. (.+) also states that the de
mos specically
precipitated the crisis. Solons promises to the de
mos, since he speaks of dissenters from those with a surfeit of good things
as we; cf. Frs. + and o, +); Fr. ,, (Solon warns that the city is being destroyed
by great men and the de
mos that he had lost it; cf. Anhalt +,,, ++ff.).The course of Solons political ca-
reer, rise, oruit, and decline is more distinctly stated in the accounts of the Ath.Pol.
and Plutarch, but these may justly suspected as embellished. Based on Solons testi-
Notes to Pages ,, :;,
mony, we may conclude that he promised the de
mos must have been discontented and ripe for defection: cf. nn. .
. Although the de
mos pacication, if it were hostile, then its approval, and nally its
consent to be led. Such lessons as existed before Kylon were obviously not heeded
by him; Isagoras (Hdt. .;:; Ath.Pol. :o. [Rhodes +,+, :o]) seems also to have ig-
nored those who came before him.
. Cf. Frs. , ;; o; , (in conjunction with ++ and +:); and Frs. o, :: and ;, o
(Solon suggests that he kept the de
ne
mos
was quite strongly asserted by the genos at the end of the fth century B.C.E., and
the words of Alkibiades the Elder at Sparta (Thuc. o.,.) suggest that the associa-
tion predated Kleisthenes prostasia of the de
s tou de
s
tou de
ne
ne
ne
, Peisistratos induced
those sizable numbers of defections: cf. Lavelle :ooo, ;, and n. o. See also chapter
IV.:.B.: and C.
o:. Cf. Hopper +,o+, :o; (who nevertheless does not make the connection to
Megakles).
o. Hopper (ibid.) describes the party of Megakles as none too strong.The Ky-
lonian sphage
continued to haunt the Alkmeonidai well into the fth century (cf.
section .A.:. and n. +).
o. Andrewes +,:a, ,; cf. also Cornelius +,:,, ++;; Hopper +,o+, :oo;
Fornara and Samons +,,+, +; and Manville +,,o, +oo, n. ;.
o. Cf. chapter II, nn. and o; and n. o,.
oo. Cf. Holladay +,;;, .
o;. Singor (:ooo, +:o) unnecessarily belabors Herodotos +.,. (tm v o otm v
xotoro ovoo) as selected those men from the citizens (cf. also +::). The
phrase means selected citizens or selected men of the city. (The obvious contrast
is between the men from the city and the men from elsewhere in Attika: they are not
men of the diakria: see n. o.) Singor further reads class and economics into the
korune
phoroi (viz.,city proletariat) and much else into the passage without justi-
cation or real regard to context. Singor struggles with the problem of why
korune
phoroi instead of doryphoroi: cf. section :.C.: and nn. o, +o+, +o:, and +o.
:: xo+rs +o r:trs ;,+
o. While many take the korune
phoroi (un-
orthodox bodyguards) are simply not doryphoroi (orthodox bodyguards) and so can-
not be held to the same accounts. Cf. Hopper +,o+, :oo; and Lavelle +,,, +o,ff. Cf.
also Gouchin +,,,, +,::, who also notes the conspicuous absence of the hyper-
akrioi among the bodyguard (:o). See also n. o, (on diakrioi/hyperakrioi). On the
korune
mos by the aristocracy must date at least to Solon, who also called it
empty-headed (++, o: ouvo . . . voo) and further castigated it for failing to heed
Notes to Pages :.:, :
the warning signs of approaching tyranny (cf. F +o [W]; n. ). Cf. also Lavelle +,,,
o, n. , ,, n. :, and +oo;; Gray +,,;; Moles :oo:, ;; and n. .
;. Cf. chapter II..A. and nn. ++o+.
;. Solons warnings about impending tyranny and what that meant (F ,++ W;
cf. F ), clarions really, seem to have eluded Salmon +,,, :+.
;. Cf. Lavelle :ooo, :, n. :, and ,o, n. +; and nn. oo,; cf. also n. ;:.
;o. Cf. Hdt. o.+:; cf. also Lavelle +,,, ,ff.; cf. nn. ;;;.
;;. Marathon shield signal: Hdt. o.+:+.+: (which shows that the notion of Alk-
meonid collaboration was still quite topical in Herodotos time). The apology of
Fornara and Samons (+,,+, +,ff.) for Herodotos defense of the Alkmeonidai, to wit,
it is inconceivable that the Alcmeonids could have attempted to prove that they
could not have displayed the shield signal by urging their anti-tyrannist sentiments
in the manner presented to Herodotos, is dicult to fathom. It overlooks the fact
that twenty years had passed between the expulsion of the tyrants and Marathon and
that memories could have could dimmedor at least that facts could have been rein-
terpreted. It also ignores the fact that bad Alkmeonid defenses are in fact preserved
in Herodotos and other Greek sources.
As it is, the Alkmeonid defense is no more than circumstantial and fallacious:
Kallias fearlesslybought Peisistratid property after their expulsion, therefore he was
not a collaborator (o.+:+); and the Alkmeonidai freed Athens much more than Har-
modios and Aristogeiton,therefore they were not collaborators (o.+:.:). (The Alk-
meonid defense of Megakles collaboration was not denial but emphasis that he was
resisting Peisistratos more than he was in league with him, that he really was antityran-
nist all along: see section .C.)
Such an Alkmeonid defense in ,o might seem inconceivable to us, who have
much the longer view of things and are incredulous that the Alkmeonidai would dare
to introduce such feeble argumentation.Yet this type of apology, which is obviously
what was offered, could have played for the Athenian audience, which apparently
had much the shorter view of things. In straitened political circumstances, the Alkme-
onidai are likely to have pled it in tandem with their stronger claim to have actually
liberated Athens (cf. section C.). At all events, what we nd in Herodotos at
o.+:+:, and indeed in the Peisistratid logos, are portions of a highly transparent and
inferior defense (wrought perhaps from desperation) created perhaps very likely by
the essential indefensibility of their forebears actions. In point of fact,awed defense
of the Alkmeonidai might best characterize Herodotos rendering of Peisistratid his-
tory.On the sixth-century archon list (IG I
3
++), see chapter I, n. +:; and nn. :.
Marriage alliance: Isok. +o.:; Lavelle +,a; Lavelle +,,a. Cf. also n. ;.
;. Jacoby +,,, +o; cf. Gillis +,;,, ; and Lavelle +,,, ;o, n. ;o. The
counterarguments of Develin (+,) and Fornara and Samons (+,,+, +, n. :) et alii
are not convincing because the type, the number, and the very fact of the Alkme-
onids essentially defensive stories belie any conclusion that the Athenians actually
believed their stories about their conduct under the tyrants (cf. Lavelle +,,, ,, n.
:). The really defensive tone of Herodotos on the shield signal (o.+:+.+; cf. n. ;;)
does not suggest that even the Athenians of Herodotos day believed the Alkmeonid
defensenor in fact do the second and third ostracisms, which exiled two Alkme-
onids who were also remembered as kin of the tyrants (cf. Ath.Pol. ::.; cf. also
Lavelle +,a).
: xo+rs +o r:trs ,
That Herodotos was informed by the Alkmeonidai on Peisistratos rise is further
indicated by the fact that, apart from Peisistratos, Megakles is the most signicant and
frequently named gure in the digression. Cf. Lavelle +,,, ,+o+.The assumption
is further corroborated by Herodotos demonstrated preference for Alkmeonid in-
formation on the tyranny together with the testimonia he supplies in the digression
on Peisistratos rise to power. At +.o., Herodotos reports that at least some mem-
bers of the Alkmeonid genos went into voluntary (?) exile rather than live under the
Peisistratid regime after Palle
ne
ne
ne
: cf.
Lavelle +,,:b. Peisistratos got the upper hand over his rivals by learning how to
manipulate the de
mos better than they did, not primarily because of sustained mili-
tary power: cf. n. o and chapter V.
++. Cf. appendix C and n. :.
++. It is generally inferred that Peisistratos was not run out of Attika after his ex-
pulsion from his rst tyranny but instead returned to eastern Attika: cf. Hdt. +.o+.:
(cf. also Berve +,o;, +.;Andrewes +,:a, ,; Lavelle +,,, ,, n. ; and de Libero
+,,, ++ and n. ). It is to be admitted, however, that this is no more than inference
and that we really do not know anything of his whereabouts during the rst period
of the exile. He could have been in Argos as well as in eastern Attika: cf. chapter IV,
n. + and appendix C and nn. o; and ;o.
++o. This further corroborates the belief that the men of the diakria were of no
account in the arena of city politics: cf. Lavelle :ooo, +.
++;. apyo rup0rototov, m rym ruioxm, oxm. (I shall not reproduce the
entire, extensive passage in the Greek here but excerpt it only.) On the second
tyranny and Phye-as-Athena,see Hdt. +.oo.:o+.: (How and Wells +,+:, +.:);
Ath.Pol. +.+.: (Rhodes +,+, :o; Chambers +,,o, :o); Poly. +.:+.+;Val. Max.
+... Cf. Beloch +,+, +.:, :ff.; Cornelius +,:,, ff., +ff.; Schachermeyr +,;b,
+o+o; Berve +,o;, +.o; Bornitz +,o, +o+:; Andrewes +,:a, ,; Connor
+,;, :;; Stahl +,;, o+ff.; Sinos +,,, ;,,+; Lavelle +,,+, ++,, Lavelle +,,,
,ff.; de Libero +,, and Blok :ooo. (The thesis of de Libero, that Herodotos does
not in effect describe a second tyranny for Peisistratos, a resurrection of Belochs idea
[after Herschonsohn; cf. also Sancisi-Weerdenburg :ooob, +o+:], is constructed with
disregard to explicit statements made by the historian, e.g., Megakles invited Peisis-
tratos to marry his daughter but rai tuovvioi [+.oo.:; cf., e.g.,Turner +, :] and
Peisistratos held Athens for the third time and rooted the tyranny[+.o.+].The dis-
regard for what Herodotos says is not justied by de Libero in the article, and the
thesis, as a result, remains unpersuasive. Cf. Pesely +,,, o; and Lavelle :ooo, ,,
n. o.) Fornara and Samons (+,,+, +) comment that the sudden turnabout by
: xo+rs +o r:trs ,o,,
Megacles is surprising.This is only true if Herodotos account is taken at face value
and not contextualized.
++. Hdt. +.oo.+o+.:; cf. How and Wells +,+:, +.:; Ogden +,,;, , and :o:,
n. +o; Hoben +,,;; and Drger +,,, the latter two concerned with the sexual abuse
aspects of the story.
++,. See Kleidemos FrGrHist :, F + (who calls Phye the daughter of Sokrates
and says that she was given in marriage to Hipparchos); and schol. ad Ar. Eq. ,
(which calls her Myrrhine). Cf. Rhodes, +,+, :oo; Lavelle +,,, ,,, n. ,; and
Bencsik +,,, , and nn. ++. See also n. ++;.
+:o. Cf. Lavelle +,,, +oo, n. o:; and n. ++;.
+:+. Connor +,;, :;; cf. also Tyrrell and Brown +,,+, +o:o.
+::. Sinos +,,, . There are several weaknesses in Sinos exposition. (+) The
epiphanies of divinities (;,o) and religious impersonations () are not of the same
nature as the obviously staged impersonation of Athena for the ostensibly political
benet of another human. (:) We do not know with what piety or impiety the Athe-
nians accepted what the pageant purported: they may have believed or they may have
colluded in pretending to believe it. (The parallel of Greek Orthodox ceremony cited
[ff.] does not explain the Athenians reception, since the occasion was not by any
means religious in the same or even in a similar sense.) () Sinos pronouncement that
Herodotos leaves no doubt that the tyrant did not have divine sponsorship is atly
contradicted by the prophecy of Amphilytos just before Palle
ne
ne
(Mor. :,b),
an Eretrian colony in Macedonia on the Thermaic Gulf roughly opposite the
promontory of Megalo Karabournou and Rhaike
los
(or, even more unlikely, the Pangaion settlement) was Hekataios rather than an
Athenian Atthidographer. The linkage was with Peisistratos the Athenian after all,
the story of Rhaike
mata and many allies. Cf. Lavelle +,,+, :o:+; +,,:a, +o; +,,:b, +; cf. also
Viviers +,;, +,; cf. also appendix H.
. Cf. Boardman +,o, ::,.
,. The Eretrian presence around the gulf was longstanding when Peisistratos ar-
rived: cf. Hammond +,,, +,; and nn. +o+;.
+o. While it is possible that Peisistratos and his philoi were convicted of some
crime and their properties ocially forfeited in the wake of their expulsion from At-
tika, it is hard to imagine how the Athenians of the city could enforce conscation
of holdings (mostly?) in eastern Attika. Eastern Attika was beyond the pale of Athens:
cf. chapter II, n. .
++. See chapter III.:.A.., n. .
+:. Cf. Hammond (+,,), who discusses the wealth of the Thermaic Gulf region;
cf. also section +.B.:. On the Strymon-Pangaion, cf. also Lavelle +,,:a, +:+, for the
Strymon-Pangaion area and section +.C.+.
+. Cf. Hdt. .+.+, .+:;Thuc. +.+o.:; and Xen. Hell. :.+.:.
+. Cf. Moss +,o,, oo.
+. See n. ; cf. Rhodes +,+, :o;; Edson +,;, ,; Cole +,;; Dusing +,;,,
.; Isaac +,o, +;Viviers +,;, esp. +,; and Baba +,,o. Edson and Viviers dispute
whether Peisistratos actually foundeda settlement.At all events, accompanying set-
tlers are usually indicated by the verb synoikisein: see nn. and : and appendix F.
Cf. also Casson +,:, o, , and ;.
+o. On Methone
ne
se (cf. Hammond
+,o; Figueira +,,+, +o; and de Libero +,,o, ;).
:. Cf. Hammond and Grith +,;,, o; Isaac +,;, +; Baba +,,o, ++; and Borza
+,,o, ++;. On the Greeks and control of Thracian mines near Mount Pangaion, see
Lavelle +,,:a, +ff.; and section +.C. Cf. also Blackman +,,,:ooo +, on pottery
imports to ancient Therme
near Rhaike
los.
:. Cf. Hdt. ;.+++ (on the Satrai of Mount Pangaion); cf. also Lavelle +,,:a,
++; and n. o.
:. Cf. Cole +,;, ; Baba +,,o, +o++; and de Libero +,,o, oo, n. ,:, who dis-
cusses Peisistratos as oikiste
s of Rhaike
los
(Ath.Pol. +.:: ouvmxior [n. ]; cf. Schachermeyr +,;b, +; Figueira +,,+, +;, n.
+, and +, n. ; and Cole +,;).Viviers also misidenties the Peisistratid site of
Rhaike
los as Dikaia: cf. Figueira +,,+, +, n. ; and Hammond +,,, ,,;. Cf.
also n. +; and appendix F, n. :;.
:o. Run out of Athens in +++o B.C.E. Hippias was offered Anthe
mous by
Amyntas and Iolkos (near modern Volo) by the Thessalians (Hdt. .,.+; cf. How and
Wells +,+:, :.).This offer was probably made because of the reputation Peisistratos
had established in the region of Macedonia and Thessaly (i.e., at Rhaike
los)he ob-
viously was successful thereand perhaps because of belief in the Peisistratid con-
nection to the Neleids (cf. chapter II, n. ). Hippias declined the offer, deciding in-
stead to fall back on Sigeion in the Troad, a Peisistratid holding (Hdt. .,.+),
apparently with his own intention already xed on returning to Athens. Cf. Borza
+,,o, ++;+; and de Libero +,,o, ,+.
:;. Baba +,,o, :ff. (based apparently on Despoine +,?), +o+;. Situation of Sin-
dos: Hdt. ;.+:.; cf. Edson +,;, +o; cf. also Hammond +,,, ,;, n. +,.
:. Pace Hammond and Grith +,;,, .
:,. Baba +,,o, +o+;. Cf. Blackman +,,,:ooo, :, on warrior graves dating to
ca. the late sixth century B.C.E. in the area of ancient Therme
.
o. Cf. Lavelle +,,:a, +ff.
:, xo+rs +o r:trs ++,:
+. The obvious parallel is Miltiades (IV), who, as dynast in Thrace, was accompa-
nied by, among others, Metiochos, his elder son, apparently by an Athenian woman
(Hdt. o.+.:; cf. Davies +,;+, o:), and others in his personal retinue (cf. n. :). Cf. also
Rhodes +,+, :o;. Cf. Figueira +,,+, +.There is no reason to doubt that at least
the eldest sons of Peisistratos accompanied him to Thrace or that Hipparchos and Hip-
pias could have come of age during the Thracian sojourn.What is in great doubt, of
course, is the story of Hippias advice to Peisistratos: see appendix C and n. ,.
:. Hdt. o.o; cf. Berve +,;, ff.; Bengston +,,, ;ff.; and Hammond +,o,
++ff.
. Cf. Markel. Vita Thuc. :; cf. also Davies +,;+, o:ff.Although the specic ties
of the Philaids would appear to have derived from their involvement as tyrants of the
Thracian Chersone
se (Markel. Vita Thuc. ++), their initial ties may have been forged
much earlier. We observe that Thucydides, the son of Oloros and namesake of the
Thracian king whose daughter Miltiades (IV) married, had holdings, obviously be-
cause of Thracian connections, at Skapte
Hyle
ne
se.
. Miltiades ghters were essential to the defense of the Chersone
se, particu-
larly to man the wall across it from Kardia (Bakla Burun) to Paktye (impe Kale) via
polis Agoraios (Bolayir).There were surely other noncombatants in Miltiades party.
For the Strymon enterprise, we should imagine a settlement of really only essential
Notes to Pages :.,., :,
personnel, viz., ghters, since these were needed to maintain it and exploit its poten-
tial. Of course, like the epikouroi who went out to Egypt in the previous century (cf.
Hdt. :.+:.ff.), these were probably, by turns and as circumstances dictated or per-
mitted, warriors, farmers, and merchants.
,. Cf. Isaac +,o, ; and +,, on Tokes, apparently a Thracian, who fell ght-
ing for lovely Eion ca. :,o B.C.E. (Cf. also Jeffery +,,o, ;,; and Plt. o.) Cf.
also Baba +,,o, +; and nn. ;.
o. Cf. Lavelle +,,:a, +:, :::.
+. Ath.Pol. +.+: (cf. n. :); cf. Rhodes +,+, +,off.
:. Cf. Dusing +,;,, ; and Baba +,,o, +o.
. Cf. Dusing +,;,, ,,o, n. ++; and Lavelle +,,:a, ++;.
. Cf. Dusing +,;,, ,; Isaac +,o, +; Lavelle +,,:a, :o; and de Libero +,,o,
oo, n. ,. Cf. also n. :.
. Hdt. .:.:; cf. How and Wells +,+:, ,; and Lavelle +,,:a, +,; see also nn.
o and oo. Myrkinos must have been quite near Amphipolis (cf. Isaac +,o, +o), and
How and Wells (+,+:, :.) suggest that Myrkinos performed the same function as
Amphipolis, but that is unlikely. Myrkinos (more likely modern Myrhinos, not mod-
ern Myrkinos) is up from the at of the river and positioned so as to inuence trac
moving around Pangaion: see Lavelle +,,:a, +o, n. . Cf., however, Isaac (+,o, ) on
Hill +, about km northeast of Amphipolis, who suggests that the settlement
here is Ennea Hodoi. In fact, Hill + is a very reasonable place for Myrkinos to have
been located, a natural strong point and somewhat closer to the mines of Pangaion
(cf. Isaac +,o on the material remains). Cf. also n. o:.
o. Cf. Balcer +,,, +;o, n. ;.
;. Cf. also ;, F o.Although Strabos description applies to what he calls Dato
n,
Borza (+,,, o) has argued that Strabo is mistaken and that his words are more ap-
propriate to the land just beyond Amphipolis on and around Lake Prasias.
. Cf. Strabo ; F . Cf. also Plut. Kim. ;.; Isaac +,o, +:; and Balcer +,, ++,
n. . On the Strymon as Paionian land, cf. Hdt. .+.:. Cf. also n. o. On the topog-
raphy of the lower Strymon region, see further Hammond +,,;.
,. Cf. Lavelle +,,:a, +o+;.
o. Cf. ibid., +off. Herodotos calls the Satrai, who controlled the mines of Pan-
gaion, subservient to no one for as long as anyone knew and very acute in respect
of war (;.+++).Their neighbors, the Edonoi, who dwelt between the Satrai and the
Strymon, were hardly less so: they participated in the annihilation of ten thousand
Athenians at Drabeskos in o B.C.E. (Hdt. ,.; [How and Wells +,+:, :.+,];Thuc.
+.+oo. [cf. Hornblower +,,+, +o]; see also n. +). It was they who were driven
out of Ennea Hodoi by Hagnon and Athenians with him before the settlers founded
Amphipolis: cf. nn. + and ;.
+. Drabeskos:Thuc. .+o:.: (cf. Gomme +,o, ;; Hornblower +,,o, :o:;
Isaac +,o, ::; cf. also n. o). Hagnon at Amphipolis:Thuc. .+o:. (Hornblower
+,,o, ::; Isaac +,o, o).The archaeological record of the area currently avail-
able suggests that, except for Argilos (Isaac +,o, :; Blackman +,,o,;, +; Black-
man +,,;,, ,; Blackman +,,,:ooo, ,,o), an Andrian (?) colony to the west of
Amphipolis/Ennea Hodoi,Thasian/Parians were settled at Eion (see n. ;) and pos-
sibly Ennea Hodoi by the end of the sixth century B.C.E. (see nn. , , and ;).
These settlements, which may have come about in the wake of a Thracian contrac-
:,o xo+rs +o r:trs +::;
tion following the deportations of Megabazos (Hdt. .+., +., :.+; cf. Hammond
and Grith +,;,, ) were inconsiderable and apparently did not last: cf. Isaac
+,o, , +. Cf. also Lavelle +,,:a, ++; and nn. ; and o:.
:. Isaac (+,o, :) notes that the climate along the seacoast is more Mediter-
ranean than central European and that crops more familiar to Greeks from the south
could be grown easily there but not inland. But Herodotos (.++.:) observes the
erceness of the Strymonic winds and, in spite of climatic difference of the coast, the
habitat would not have been nearly as congenial as anywhere in Aegean Greece south
of Thrace (cf. Aes. Agam. +,:; and How and Wells +,+:, :.:;;). Cf. also Lavelle
+,,:a, :o.
. Cf. Hdt. +.o.+ (see n. o;); cf. also Ath.Pol. +.: (see n. ).
. Cf. Hornblower +,,o, :. Androtion FrGrHist : F also makes Ennea
Hodoi the older name for Amphipolis, and the author of the Ath.Pol. certainly uti-
lized the latter; cf. Harding +,,, +::,. Cf. also Kallet-Marx +,,, +;;o.
. On Aristagoras, cf. Hdt. .+:o.+ (How and Wells +,+:, :.oo [although they are
surely wrong that the polis Aristagoras was trying to take was Ennea Hodoi]);Thuc.
.+o:.: (cf. Hornblower +,,o, :o::); cf. also n. +. On Amphipolis, cf. Lazaridis
+,,; cf. also Isaac +,o, o, ; and n. o:.
o. Cf. Isaac +,o, ff., :ff.
;. Eion should be located to the southeast of Amphipolis, where the low ridges
of Pangaion push out toward the sea: a higher, more defensible spot with an adequate
harbor is indicated. The akropolis of Eion has been tentatively identied o km east
of the Amphipolis bridge on Prophitis Elias hill by Koukouli-Chrysanthaki (Catling
+,,, ; Hornblower +,,o, :). It is to be observed that pottery on the hilltop
is characterized as similar to precolonial levels at Thasos and that Greek pottery
types begin with Late Corinthian and Attic of the late sixth century, according to the
excavator.This should mean that Greeks were not present there until the dates cor-
responding to the appearance of that type of pottery. While this site does not seem
completely apt for Eionand the identication is not conrmedit would substan-
tiate the notion of the transitory nature of this and other settlements in the lower
Strymon area until the latter part of the sixth century B.C.E.: cf. n. +. (Certainly, the
Peisistratids had to have beached and protected their ships somewhere along the coast
and not at Amphipolis/Ennea Hodoi: see n. .) On Eion, cf. further Isaac +,o,
ooo:; French +,,+,:, +; and n. o+.
. Thucydides (.+o:.) says that the Athenians under Hagnon started out from
Eion for Ennea Hodoi, which Hagnon renamed Amphipolis. It was occupied then
by Edonians. The Athenians kept Eion as their seaside emporion at the mouth of
the river. Cf. nn. o and ;.
,. See Isaac +,o, + and o:, although that circumstance may be due to Eions
eclipse by Amphipolis in the late fth century.
oo. That abandonment, not necessarily the fact that Eion was already a Parian foun-
dation (pace Baba +,,o, ++, +), could have created the opportunity for the Pari-
ans to move further into the lower Strymon region and become established there more
permanently by ca. oo B.C.E.: cf. Isaac +,o, ;, ooo:; Baba +,,o, +; and n. ,.
o+. Hdt. ;.+o; (cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.+oo);Thuc. +.,.+ (cf. Gomme +,,
:+; and Hornblower +,,+, +,o; cf. also Smart +,o;).The Byzantine fort would
not seem to have been the site of ancient Eion (cf. Isaac +,o, oo): cf. n. ;.The course
Notes to Pages :.,.: :,;
of the Strymon seems to have changed over time (cf. Borza +,,, ooo+), and the
river now empties into the sea in a place different from where it ran in the fth cen-
tury B.C.E.
o:. Cf. nn. + and . Oisyme
ne
ne
Hyle
n-Philippi: cf. nn. ;,. Of course, the Milesians met with similarly erce re-
sistance: cf. n. o.
. Dusing (+,;,, o) alludes to this. Other Athenians who would consolidate or
expand their positions in Thrace did so by intermarrying among the natives, includ-
ing the Philaids (cf. Hdt. o.,.:, +.:; Plut. Kim. ; Markell. Vit.Thuc. ++ [Davies +,;+,
o:]; and nn. ) and apparently Iphikrates (cf. Dem. :.+:,; Nepos, .; Athen.
.++.a [but cf. Davies (+,;+, :,), who doubts the marriage alliance]).
. Ath.Pol. +. (cf. Athen. +.oo,c; and Rhodes +,+, :o); cf. Kleidemos
FrGrHist : F +. In view of the obvious importance attached by Peisistratos to pro-
ductive marriage alliances, such frivolous connections as the latter seem quite im-
probable. Cf. Davies +,;+, :.
o. Contra Isaac +,;, +: cf. Lavelle +,,:a, ff.
;. Ath.Pol. +.:; cf. Rhodes +,+, +,+; and Lavelle +,,:b, ;ff.
. See n. ,.
,. Cf. Singor :ooo, ++. Contra Singor, the perception of foreignness of
the Skythians/Thracians is exactly and graphically depicted in the vase paintings he
cites. This distinction of barbarian was as old among the Greeks as the Iliad.
More importantly for Athens, any coercive force, Greek or barbarian, would have
been resented by the Athenians as just that. Some Thracians may have accompa-
nied Peisistratos back to Athens, but these surely did not amount to a bodyguard:
cf. section :.B.+. In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever for any bodyguard of
foreigners. See chapter III.:.C.:.
,o. r yxrxoioumr vpv: arioom xrxoopr vpv . . . r oti or 'Ertioxo v
ovoo. outoi or ri tupv oiooovtoi Suida sv. ryxrxoioumrvpv. outp or
ryop0p Hrioiototm rairipoovti tuovvriv. Cf. also E Nubes o, E Nubes o
(Tzetzes), E ad Nubes (Tzetzes). Cf. Shear +,o; Davies +,;+, o+; Rhodes +,+,
:o; cf. also n. ,+. Cf. Lavelle +,,a.
oo xo+rs +o r:trs ++
,+. Cf. E Acharn. o+, E Nubes o (Tzetzes), E ad Nubes (Tzetzes), E Nubes
oo. Cf. also Lavelle +,,a, o, n. ; Brenne +,,, +o; Culasso Gastaldi +,,;, o.
,:. Cf. Lavelle +,,a, oo.
,. Cf. Mattingly +,;+, :; Cromey +,, o, n. +; and Brenne +,,, ++o;
cf. also Lavelle +,,a, oo;; and Culasso Gastaldi +,,;, . Brenne (+,,, +o) notes
that on the reverse of one of the Megakles-Koisyra ostraka a drawing of a knight
appears. He speculates that this was a representation of Megakles (IV), the son of
Koisyra, and suggests that it is perhaps a reaction against the knights as a social class
and political group, but mainly alluding to the high living Koisyra and the aristocratic
connotations of the equestrian context. Brenne is surely right about the allusion to
Koisyra, but the knight seems better coupled with Eretria and the Eretrian hippeis
(horsemen), something high in the minds of the Athenians when they thought of
Koisyra (cf. Lewis +,,; Brenne +,,, :::; Raubitschek +,,; and Stanton +,,o).
(The same allusion is to be found on another ostraka cited by Brenne, which calls
Megakles a hippotrophos, a horse rearer. Cf. appendices B and C.)
,. Although run out of Attika by Megakles, Peisistratos need not have been de-
nied entirely access to the revenues of or even access to his eastern Attic property: cf.
n. +o.
,. Cf. Lavelle +,,a, o,, n. : (after Heinze).
,o. Cf. ibid., o,.
,;. Cf. nn. +, o;, and +:o.
,. Cf. n. .
,,. Cf. Rhodes +,+, :o;.
+oo. Hdt. +.o.:: xoi yo toutpv (sc. Noov) Hrioiototo xotrotroto
aorm xoi rartrr Auyooi xt. On Peisistratos and Lygdamis, see Laidlaw
+,, ;; Parke +,o; Rhodes +,+, :o,+o; and de Libero +,,o, o. On Lygdamis,
cf. further n. +o. On hostages taken after the battle of Palle
ne
ne
ne
ne
but does so
without dealing with the textual, chronological, and practical problems associated
with it.
+o:. aooioroto (Hdt. +.o+.), which connotes a sense of obligation (cf. n. +),
implies that Peisistratos rendered services for each of the poleis that had aided him at
Palle
ne
.Those were returning favors. He had campaigned for Lygdamis and the Ere-
trians before Palle
ne
ne
ne
. In
fact, his omission is conspicuous, since they did make an appearance later to ght for
Hippias: see n. ++.
++. Contra Andrewes +,:, ,,,, o:; and Bengston and Bloedow +,, +.
o: xo+rs +o r:trs +o
In fact, the Argive mistho
ne
ne
ne
ne
mos,
members of which would be the likeliest defectors to Peisistratos in any case. Cf.
MacDowell +,o: +o. On the ofcial polarity of de
ne
? See n. +;.
+:. Cf. MacDowell +,o:, :+:.
+. Cf. Andok. :.:o: the same Leogoras who opposes the tyrant at Palle
ne
had
o xo+rs +o r:trs +
the opportunity to marry into the tyrants family but preferred exile with the Alk-
meonidai instead. Cf. also nn. +; and ++.
+. Cf. de Libero +,,o, o+.
+. Cf. Lavelle +,,, ooff.
+o. Cf. Lavelle +,,a, +o.
+;. The story involving Amphilytos oracle, which was undoubtedly invented
after the battle, emphasizes that the rout was fact and that it was so well known and
painful that such an explanation was generated to account for it. The ignominy of
the crushing defeat is deected, however, by having the Athenians unfairly beaten,
which is to say, not beaten at all in both Herodotos and Andokides accounts. Cf.
Lavelle +,,+. Cf. also n. +,.
+. Could the falsity of the Alkmeonids perpetual exile have been spawned
because of actual Alkmeonid treachery at Palle
ne
ne
s
aftermath: it demonstrates for the Athenians of the fth century why their ancestors
did not rally to prevent the nal tyranny of Peisistratos. cf. Lavelle +,,, ++;, n. +o,;
and n. ++;.
+o. See section :.C.+.
++. Cf. Ath.Pol. +o.:, .Although I take by far the most of chapter +o to be fab-
ricated well after the tyranny (cf. Lavelle +,,, +:+::), the underlying sense of it
(benevolence, etc.) suggests, at the very least, that there was little or no testimony to
contradict it. Indeed, the Peisistratan period could not have been called the golden
age had there been records of vengeance, reprisals, and so on. In fact, such a mem-
ory might be taken to be yet another reason to distrust the testimony of Herodotos
about exiles and hostages.
+:. Cf. Lavelle +,,:b, ;ff.
+. Contra Bengston and Bloedow +,, +, there is no evidence that Peisis-
tratos entered the city [a]midst the jubilation of the Athenian population.This ap-
pears either to be based on a projection grounded in Herodotos testimony about
Peisistratos second return or to be sheer fancy.
+. Cf. Fornara and Samons +,,+, +;ff.; and de Libero +,,o, o.The period of
exile for the Alkmeonidai, the worst offenders against tyranny, according to
Herodotos, was not as long as twenty years, if indeed they were exiled at all.
+. Chapter I, n. +:.
+o. Davies +,;+, ;, (after Raubitschek +,,, ,). If this is true, then the nam-
ing was by Megakles and probably occurred during the second tyranny of Peisistratos
in the mid-os.The gesture was in perfect keeping with Megakles desire to pull the
two gene
ne
.
+oo. Fornara and Samons (+,,+, :+) state suppositionally, but without any sup-
port, that the Alkmeonidai remained in Athens after Palle
ne
ne
le
adikias of
the tyrants set up early in the fth century B.C.E., which condemned the family of
Peisistratos in extenso: cf.Thuc. o..+; Lavelle +,c, ::; Lavelle +,,b, :o,+o;
Stanton +,,o, ++, n. ;; Dillon and Garland +,,, +o; and Arnush +,,, +,.
It was prominently displayed on the Athenian akropolis and reasonably would have
designated the deme of the famous offenders whose crime and punishment it de-
scribed. See also appendix C, nn. and +.
:;. Leake ++, ;:; Frazer +,;, (cf. also Loeper +,:, ooo+).
:. Thompson (+,o,), who visited Leakes site in +,o, found sherds datable to the
Hellenistic period. After several visits to the same site in +,+, I found none at all.
:,. Vanderpool +,o, :;,;Traill +,;, +.Traill (+,o, +:;, n. +o) changed his mind
about his earlier designation of the deme site, favoring one across the road from the
early Christian basilica, apparently Becks site (see Beck +,;,, :). Beck, however,
places the deme site :o m west of the basilica (:), while Traill +,o places it oo m
west (+:;): cf. n. +.
o. Thompson +,o,, +,. The similarity of names caused Frazer mistakenly
to place Brauron inland and Philadai on the sea.
+. I found only a very few sherds of ribbed, unglazed pottery in the area of the
basilica.
:. Beck +,;,, :. Beck (:,) notes a very dense concentration of Classical black
glaze on the site she calls Kipi (xpaoi; see map +) and, because it is within oo m of
the proposed deme site for Philadai, she suggests that it may be an extension of the
deme-site (sc. of Philadai)]. In fact, her proposed site and Kipi are probably outly-
ing parts of the main site, and she is likely right to term Kipi a cemetery . . . located
close to, but separate from the actual deme-site (:,). See n. and map +.
. Beck +,;,, :. See also Themelis +,, +o (map); and Antoniou +,,o, ;,.
. Beck +,;,, :.
. See nn. :: and :.
o. Beck (+,;,, :ff.) notes habitation of the area from prehistoric times (a large
quantity of obsidian) through the Classical period (black glazed ware).
;. Except for the Erasinos, which seems brackish in springtime, and the Artemis
spring, there appeared to be no abundant water supply in proximity to the site. How-
ever, Beck (ibid., :) observed spring houses and wells scattered throughout the
elds, and I noted what seemed to be well heads nearer the site (see nn. + and ).
. I do not dispute that some settlers may have returned sometime after the sanc-
tuary was abandoned (cf. ibid., : and :; and Antoniou +,,o, off.). However, later
writers attest to a conspicuous lack of population of Brauron, which may be
grounded ultimately in the testimony of Philochoros: see n. ,. Members of the deme
Philadai continue to live in the region and identify with it: cf. Antoniou +,,o.
+o xo+rs +o r:trs +;;
,. It is tempting to think of this piece as a base for one of the renowned herms
of Hipparchos ([Plat]. Hipp. ::c::,b; Lavelle +,, ++ff.): cf. Pan-Painters depic-
tion of a rural herm standing upon what seems to be a rough rock (Beazley +,;,
:ff. and pls. +.:, .+; illus. ++).The base of the herm is for the most part super terram.
It must be said, however, that the piece may be no base at all but another kind of
footing. It could have been used for a ste
le
le
( Jeffery +,,o, ; [nos. and :]). Cf. Themelis +, on the third-century grave
marker of Diognetos, found ca. +,oo m. west of the sanctuary of Artemis. (Themelis
notes that the marker lacks provenance.)
o. On a visit to the site in +,, then much encroached upon by summer homes,
I was informed by one of the more garrulous locals that archaeological remains, par-
ticularly sherds of painted pottery and pieces of dressed stone, came to light regularly
while inhabitants were building or gardening in the area.These were disposed of as
quickly as they appeared.The fear was that the government, getting wind of the nds,
would appropriate the site and summer homes, compensating their owners at only a
fraction of their (now) spiraling worth. I was assured that much more pottery had
been located in the area, especially as foundations for homes were dug.The regular
method of disposal, especially for large pieces, I was told, was dumping them into the
sea nearby as soon as was feasible. It was at this point that the ladys less talkative hus-
band, who, she said, was a guard at the Brauron museum, told her to keep still. And
from that point on she did.
+. Beck +,;,, +.The akropolis of Philadai may have been aquiferous water
percolating through it to the anks of the hillock.There was some water in wells be-
low it in +,: see n. .
:. Cf. the defensive positions of the Dark Age fugitive settlement of Koukounar-
ies on Paros (and of others): Osborne +,,o, :ooo.
. On visits to the area in +,+ and +,, I noticed what seemed to be well heads
near the nd spot of the apparent stele or herm base.Thus, water from wells appears
to be abundant: see n. ;.
:rrrxiix i
+. Beck (+,;,, ;) noticed several crops grown in the area (grapes, olives, gs, al-
monds, garlic, garden crops, alfalfa, and wheat), ranking them in descending order of
importance. In +,+ and in subsequent visits to the area, I observed cultivation only
of the rst two crops, which, of course, are not subsistence ones.The character of the
land, which Beck notes is rocky (), undoubtedly accounts for most of the crops
grown there. Except for the bottomland along the Erasinos, I found it not at all prom-
ising (but see n. : and g. ). But cf. also n. o.
:. The more recent arability of the land and sucient water supply noted by Beck
(+,;,, ,) are surely modern improvements, and nothing like them would have ex-
isted in ancient times (as she also observes).The Erasinos River, with its mostly sea-
sonal supply of water, provided the agricultural basis for any settlement in the area;
there may have been small springs in the area of Philadai, certainly enough to sus-
tain a small population (cf. appendix A, n. ). Cf. n. +.
. Cf. Beck +,;,, ,; and Osborne +,;, +;o, for a characteristic view.The ob-
servations recorded here were made before the proliferation of housing tracts (e.g.,
Notes to Pages :,::o ++
Artemis Estates), which have completely altered the areas ecosystem. In relation
to population, Philadai, the deme of the region, was ranked by Traill (+,;, o) among
the midsized demes of Attika, but I am unsure on what firm basis he makes the rank-
ing or how that would apply to the archaic deme in any case.
. Due west from Brauron, the mesogaia is reached by a not very strenuous climb
to its table (I remain somewhat puzzled by Professor Lewiss comment [+,o, :] that
a sharp uphill walk is necessary to take one out of the marshy valley of Brauron it-
self to the +:o-metre level of the main Mesogeia, since, where one normally walks
from Brauron to the mesogaia, the land rises rather less sharply.) I take all the table-
land as far as Hymettos to be what the Athenians called the mesogaia and, in terms
relative to Athens, the diakria or hyperakria (see g. ). On the thinnessof Attic soil
generally, cf.Thuc. +.:.. (cf. Hornblower +,,o, +:; and Beck +,;,, ;).
. In +,+, +,, +,,:, and +,,o, only viticulture was observable in the land
toward Hymettos (see g. ).The area further west around Koropi and south toward
Markopoulo is, of course, renowned in recent times for the production of resinated
wine (cf. Barber +,,o, ::). Olive trees have been planted on the western ank of the
hill Agrielista, that is, right on top of the proposed site of Philadai (see appendix A).
o. Certainly Beck (+,;,, ;ff.) is far more optimistic than I am about the regions
agricultural potential.The fertility of the place, attested by locals, is probably due to the
intensive gardening they manage as agricultural dilettantes. Nonetheless, the possibili-
ties for growing a variety of crops, albeit in small patches with small yields, are present.
;. Beck (ibid., ) also noted beekeeping in the area. Although I did not see this
on my earlier visits, I do not doubt it.
. The extensive area south of Spata, west of Brauron/Philadai, must have been
reasonably good land for horses and presumably could have supplied its cultivators
with fodder (cf. g. ).
,. Miltiades III: Hdt. o.o.+; Paus. o.+o. and +,.o; cf. Davies +,;+, :,,oo. Kimon
koalemos: Hdt. o.+o.; cf. Schachermeyr +,;c, :+++; and Davies +,;+, oo.The
connection of the descendants of Kypselos (i.e., the Philaids) to Philaios, the epony-
mous of the deme, was made by Pherykydes FrGrHist , : F : and Hellanikos Fr-
GrHist F :: (= Didymos [= Markel. Vit.Thuc. ]; cf. Davies +,;+, :,,). It is dis-
puted by Lewis (+,o, :), who positions the Kypselid/Philaid genos at Lakiadai, west
of Athens on the Sacred Way (Hdt. o.); cf. also Davies +,;+, oo. I am unsure why, in
any case, the encounter of the Dolonkoi with Miltiades at Lakiadai would exclude Phi-
ladai as the home deme of the Kypselid/Philaids or, for that matter, why the details
of this story would be taken at all literally (cf. Lewis +,o): see now Anderson :ooo.
The Dolonkoi encounter can hardly be considered much more than contrived: really,
are we to believe that the Thracian Dolonkoi acquired a Greek chieftain merely by hap-
penstance? Surely, if there is any truth to the story that the Dolonkoi actually made
their way to Athens and applied for a leader, they did so most likely because of the
Athenian presence in Sigeion and were directed to Miltiades because of Peisistratid pa-
tronage: cf. Isaac +,o, +o.The Peisistratids had abodes in Attika elsewhere than Phi-
ladai, which nevertheless remained their home deme, and the Kypselid/Philaid genos
can surely have possessed more than one Attic residence. Cf. Berve +,;, ; ff.; Kinzl
+,o, :o, n. +; Figueira +,,+, +; and Anderson :ooo. Cf. also chapter II, n. +;.
+o. Marathon burial: Catling +,o,;o, o (MH). Lefkandi: Catling +,:, +;
Whitley +,,+, +o; Lemos :oo:, +. A LM IIIA horse sacrice at Arkhanes in
+: xo+rs +o r:trs +o+
Crete is noted by Sakellariou and Sakellariou (+,,+, ;o;;). (I thank Dr. Paul Rehak
for this reference.) This provides yet another link of the regions inhabitants to Bronze
Age forebears: cf. chapter II.:.B; and nn. +; and :o.
++. Cf. Frost +,o, o:.
+:. Cf. Popham, Sackett, and Themelis +,;,, off. (who note [] Athenian
contact during the ninth century B.C.E.); Osborne +,,o, +;;; and Thomas and
Conant +,,,, ++.
+. On Pithekoussai, cf. Osborne +,,o, +++,. On Al Mina, see Osborne +,,o,
++:+. Cf. Boardman (+,o, +oo), who suggests that trade was already under way
by ca. ;;o B.C.E. Hillers suggestion (+,, ++ after Hallager and Taylour) that Dark
and Archaic Age colonization was rooted in earlier Mycenaean contacts with the
same areas seems right. On precolonial contacts, see Graham +,, oo. The ma-
terial record of Lefkandi/Xeropolis shows continuity between the Late Bronze and
early Dark Ages, and it would be no coincidence, then, that the Euboians led the way
in colonization to the west (where the Mycenaeans had been before) because they
had more substantial links to them. Cf. Killian +,,o. It is unreasonable to imagine
that the Lelantine Plain was depopulated and abandoned by such colonization, how-
ever (cf. Morris +,;, +ooo): the settlers at Pithekoussai need not have been all Eu-
boian after all. On the Lelantine war, see n. +.
+. On the Thalassocracy lists, see Euseb. Chron. +.::; cf. Jeffery +,;o, ::.
There is really no satisfactory explanation for the thalassocratic scheme of
Diodoros/Eusebios, placing Eretrian hegemony just before Aeginas (cf. Jeffery +,;o),
Millers enthusiasm for it (+,;+) notwithstanding: the traditional dates for the Ere-
trian thalassocracy are too late to coincide with the period of the citys greatest power
and prosperity. Cf. French +,;, :,. On the Lelantine war and the destruction of
Lefkandi, see Hdt. .,,.+ (cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.);Thuc. +.+. (Gomme +,,
+:o:;; and Hornblower +,,+, ,); Str. +o.+.+++: (); Plut. Mor. ;ooe;o+b; cf.
Blakeway +,:, :o:ff.; Bradeen +,;; Boardman +,;; Forrest +,;, +o+ff.; Don-
lan +,;o; Bakhuizen +,;o, o; Jeffery +,;o, off.; and Thomas and Conant +,,,,
+o:. Although Eretria seems to have been bested in the conict, its power remained
considerable: cf. Str. +o.+.+o, who notes an inscription from old (i.e., pre-Persian
sack) Eretria that numbered the Eretrians participant in a festal procession at three
thousand hoplites, six hundred horsemen, and sixty chariots. Cf. Popham, Sackett,
and Themelis +,;,, oo,. Cf. also nn. + and +,.
+. The Eretrians may have turned their attentions more fully southward and sea-
ward to possibilities after their defeat in the Lelantine war. For all, however, they ap-
pear to have reached some accord with the Chalkidians so as to be able to sail through
the Euripous.
+o. This string of names might perhaps have been a further link to the Neleidai.
Nestor and the Pylians were, of course, renowned horsemen in Homer: cf. Il. :.o,
,.:, etc.; and Kirk +,, ++. Cf. also Shapiro +,b, and chapter II.:.C.
+;. On Euboian horse culture, see Jeffery +,;o, o;o; cf. Popham, Sackett and
Calligas +,,, ++ and +:; and Thomas and Conant +,,,, ,o; and Lemos :oo:,
+ on horse burial at Toumba. See also nn. +o and :o.
+. On the Abantes as descendants of the Achaians, see Il. :.o (cf. Kirk +,,
:o); on their reputation as Homeric-style ghters through to the seventh century
B.C.E., cf. Archilochos Fr. W (cf. Campbell +,o;, +); and Str. +o.+.+.
Notes to Page ::. +
+,. Xeropolis-Lefkandi was inhabited almost continuously from LH IIIC until
its destruction (perhaps the late ninth or early eighth centuries B.C.E.), and Eretria
seems to have been the successor of that destroyed city of the Lelantine Plain (cf.
Thomas and Conant +,,,, ,). On the destruction of Lefkandi-Xeropolis and the
connection between Lefkandi and Eretria (pace Bakhuizen +,;o, ;ff.), see Popham,
Sackett, and Themelis +,;,, ff. On the heron of Toumba, see Popham, Calligas,
and Sackett +,,; Osborne +,,o, +;Thomas and Conant +,,,, ,,;, and Lemos
:oo:, +oo.
:o. The horse burial at Lefkandi, where two horses were laid on two, might par-
allel the burial of the four horses of Kimon koalemos (Catling +,o+, ;; Catling
+,:, +; Winter +,, ; cf. n. +o): evidently, the four horses of Lefkandi also
comprised a chariot team and two on two might well have been the ritually correct
form of such burials. Cf. also Catling +,, +o (a ceramic horse with pithoi). See
also n. +,.
:+. The destruction of Eretria in ,o B.C.E. and subsequent transportation of the
population by the Persians (Hdt. o.,, +o+) appears to have been the blow from which
the city never really recovered (cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.+oo). Karystos sided with
the Persians in ,o after force was brought to bear by Datis (Hdt. o.,,.:), was again
arrayed with the Mede in o (Hdt. .oo.:), and was subsequently punished by the
Delian League for that complicity (Hdt. .++:.:, +:+.:, ,.+o;Thuc. +.,.; cf. How
and Wells +,+:, :.+o; Gomme +,, :+:; and Hornblower +,,+, +o+).
::. Cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.+::.The Athenian apologyfor their expulsion
of the Pelasgians from Attika (Hdt. o.+;.), that is, that it was in reprisal for the at-
tack of the Pelasgians on Athenian girls at Enneakrounos, might be a doublet of the
Brauronian rape, for both provided pretexts (or rather explanations) for land seizures
from the Pelasgians (cf. Merriam +, :;:). Since the myth of the Lemnian deeds be-
came proverbial, it might be thought to antedate the myth of the Pelasgian ejection
from Attika, that is to say, the Lemnian deeds myth might actually have inspired the
Pelasgian myth instead of the other way around cf. appendix A, n. ::. Cf. also n. :.
:. Thuc. +..:; cf. Gomme +,, +oo; and Hornblower +,,+, :.
:. Cf. Peppas-Delmousou +,, :o. Homer on raids: Il. ++.o;off.; cf. Hes. Cat.
o.ff., where the sea raids of Salaminian Aias against Troezen, Epidauros, and sev-
eral other cities are described. Aias aim was, however, to capture ocks not people.
Megarian piracy from Salamis: Legon +,+, +o+; cf. also chapter II..A.+. Aeginetan
attacks on Phaleron: Hdt. .;,ff.; cf. Figueira +,,.
:. Theo
ria: Paus. +.+.:; cf. Parker +,,o, ::. Peppas-Delmousou (+,, :;)
suggests that the theo
le
s inscrip-
tion, it is reasonable to assume that the name of Hippias grandfather (Hippokrates)
was also written. It is less certain that his great-grandfathers name (i.e., the name of
Peisistratos grandfather) was also in the inscription, for it is never mentioned in
sources. Cf. also Rhl +,+, o, n. +; Lavelle +,ob, :, n. ::; and nn. o and +.
o. On the basis of naming patterns among the Athenians, it is possible that Pei-
sistratos grandfather had the same name as he. (Of course, he is disqualied as the ar-
chon for oo,o B.C.E.) Cf., however, Davies +,;+, ; and n. ++.There is no posi-
tive information about his grandfathers name. Cf. chapter II, n. ;.
;. Cf. Lavelle +,oa, :, n. :. If the name of Peisistratos mother was preserved,
it, too, could have been in an inscription such as that upon the ste
le
se (cf. Bradeen
+,o, +,; Meiggs and Lewis +,;, ++; Davies +,;+, :,; and Arrowsmith +,). Surely
there were others at Athens who aspired to atter the tyrant family of Corinth (cf.
Salmon +,, +off.) or seek Kypselos good luck by naming a son after him. Indeed,
the kouros (youth statue) dedication commonly known as the Kroisos of Anavyssos
(Athens, National Museum +; cf. Davies +,;+, ;; Ridgway +,,, oo,, , and
gs. +ac; and Osborne +,,, o+) must represent such. (See Anderson :ooo,
,,o.) On the other hand, even if the Kypselos who was archon did in fact de-
rive from Philadai, there is really nothing to conclude about the Peisistratidai, the di-
akria, or Athenian attitudes with respect to them: indeed, such an oce could have
been extraordinary, even anomalous, in view of Athens political crisis in the early
sixth century B.C.E.: see chapter II..A; appendix B, nn. :; and n. +o. Herodotos
treatment of Peisistratos rise depicts the diakria as distinct from Athens in the early
sixth century B.C.E.: cf. chapter II, nn. o.
+o. Cf. Davies +,;+, .An opportunity may have been created for the outlander
Peisistratos in oo,o B.C.E. by extreme circumstances (cf. n. +). But the identica-
tion with the tyrant house or even the diakria is all very shaky indeed, and the ear-
lier intervention amounted to nothing in the long run for Peisistratos in the sixth
century.
+;. Cf. chapter III.:.A.; and :.B.
+. Plut. Sol. +.:.
+,. Herakl. Pont. F +; (Wehrli) (= Plut. Sol. +.:); Diog. Laert. +., (citing
Sosikrates, who is inferior as a source [because later] even to Herakleides for events
in the life of Solon). Herakleides was apparently not the rst to make the two lovers:
cf. nn. :o and :. Cf. Schachermeyr +,;a, +o; Freeman +,:o, +:; Berve +,o;, +.;
Davies +,;+, :; and Gottschalk +,o, +:.The testimony of Diog. Laert. +. adds
nothing to Herakleides. On Herakleides historical authority, cf. Bosworth +,,
(who, I think, invests Herakleides with too much credibility). Cf. also Gottschalk
+,o, +:ff.; Podlecki +,;, ; Oliva +,, ;; and Lapini +,,o, +ff.
:o. Cf.Wilamowitz +,, I.:o; Davies +,;+, ; Podlecki +,;, ,; and de Libero
+,,o, :: (who cites the silence of Herodotos). Freeman (+,:o, +) seems not at
Notes to Pages :, +;
all skeptical. Cf. Schachermeyr +,;b, +oo: Was ber die Beziehungen des jungern
P. und Solon berichtet sind . . . ist vager Natur und wahrscheinlich Fiktion; and
Rhodes +,+, :o: (on Plutarchs treatment of Solon). Cornelius (+,:,, ++), nds the
erotic attachment suspicious.
:+. Cf. however Podlecki +,;.
::. Cf. Wilamowitz +,, I.:o; cf. also Gottschalk +,o, +:; and Podlecki
+,;, ,.
:. Herakleides F +, Wehrli (= Plut. Sol. +.). Herakleides seems to be fol-
lowing anothers lead here: see nn. :o, ::,, and o;.
:. Herakleides F + Wehrli (= Plut. Sol. :.).
:. Theophrastos F ,, W (= Plut. Sol. :.); Phanias of Eresos (FrGrHist o: F
:+ [= Plut. Sol. :.]). Cf.Ael. V.H. .+o. Cf. also Wilamowitz +,, +.:o:; Gottschalk
+,o, +:, n. +;; Develin +,,, :; and de Libero +,,o, +:.
:o. Cf. Ath.Pol. +;.:, which I take to be based on information earlier than Her-
akleides work nevertheless pluralizes those who made Solon and Peisistratos lovers
(cf. nn. +, and :). Cf. Rhodes +,+, ::; cf. also Gottschalk +,o, +:, on Heraklei-
despsychological method of writing history; and Lapini +,,o. Cf. also nn. ::,.
:;. I take the date of Solons archonship (see n. :) to be as accurately transmit-
ted as any other archon date from the sixth century B.C.E. and that the special com-
mission to reform the laws must be directly linked to it: cf. Rhodes +,+, +:o::.
See also chapter II..A..
:. Although dismissed as nonsense on chronological grounds by AP (+;.:), the
erotic connection is nonetheless repeated by Plut. Sol. +. and Ael. VH .+o. Cf.
Schachermeyr +,;b, +oo; and Berve +,o;, +.; (weniger glaublich). Podlecki
(+,;, , n. ) states that the chronology does not rule out the possibility but says
nothing about sources, context, and the overriding concerns of those who unite the
two: cf. n. :,. (It is to be noted, however, that AP says that Peisistratos could not have
been strate
gos in the war with Megara for Salamis on the same chronological
grounds: cf. Rhodes +,+, ::; and chapter II..A..) On Ath.Pol. +;.:, cf. Rhodes
+,+, +,,:oo; and Chambers +,,o, +,,. Cf. also French +,;, +, n. ++; Hopper +,o+,
:++, n. :o; and Legon +,+, +:o.
On the birth date of Peisistratos, see appendix D. On the archonship of Solon
(Sosikrates apud Diog. Laert. +.o:), see Cadoux +,, ,,,; Podlecki +,;, ;
and Develin +,,, ;. (One would imagine that archon years, written in perhaps
several reliable sources, would be more dicult for one such as Sosikrates to get
wrong.) On Solons sojourn from Athens, see Plut. Sol. :.o; cf. also Linforth +,+,,
,ff.; Freeman +,:o, +;,+; and Podlecki +,;, although Podlecki opts for the late
departure of Solon on the inrm authority of Herakleides and Diogenes Laertios.
(Contra Podlecki +,;, ,, a later date for the sojourns, as suggested by Diogenes
Laertios [+.o], in conjunction with Herakleides [F +Wehrli], in opposition to the
implication that Solon left more or less immediately, surely is not to be preferred: cf.
Ath.Pol. ++.+; Freeman +,:o, +o; and Rhodes +,+, +;o [D.L. I.,, o:, dates
Solons travels later . . . because he believes that Solon could not have lived under Pi-
sistratus rule] That appears, then, as a deviation from Herakleides maverick dating
of Solons death: cf. n. :.) Cf. also n. :,.
:,. Cf. Wilamowitz +,, +.:o. It was both logical and undoubtedly appealing
to Herakleides (and his audience) to connect Solon and Peisistratos as blood kin: as,
+ xo+rs +o r:trs +,,o
for example, Odysseus cleverness was made to derive by blood from his clever an-
cestors Sisyphos,Autolykos, and Hermes (Il. o.+;Aesch. F +; [Nauck]; Soph.
Aias +,o and schol. ad loc.; Suida s.v. Eiouo), so did the wisdom of the two Athe-
nian sophoi (wise men) spring from a common ancestry. Perhaps the blood link was
further inferred because of Solons ties to Salamis (cf. chapter II..A.. and .E) and
Peisistratos to Salaminian Aias through Philaios (cf. chapter II, n. +;, and section
.D.:. and E). Herakleides was no historian: his interest was not simple fact (cf. n. :o).
His information about Solon was probably included in Hri tp op, the source
for information for Diogenes Laertios about Periandros (+.,), and one that Dio-
genes classes as one of Herakleides ethical dialogues (.o). Cf. however Gottschalk
+,o, ++, n. :, and +:. (I omit discussion of Bakaoukas, :oo+.)
Was Herakleides ultimate source Kritias, a member of the genos of Solon? Was
he uniting the two part of Kritias antidemocracy political program? Cf. Freeman
+,:o, +:. But see also Davies +,;+, :::, on the diculties of the family link
between Solon and Dropides. (Davies, nevertheless, seems to accept the aliation.)
Cf. nn. : and o.
o. The most emphatic source for such a union may well have been Herakleides
himself (cf. Manfredini and Piccirilli +,;;, ++ff.; and n. :,). Cf, however,Wilamowitz
+,, I.:o, n. ++.
+. Cf. Podlecki +,; on doublets involving Solon and Peisistratos. Cf. chapter
II..A. and .E.
:. Cf. Eder +,, o,: One may say that Peisistratus could well have been re-
garded as a second Solon in the eyes of the demos. . . . Both of them actually provided
tyranny. Cf. n. .
. Plut. Sol. +. (= Herakleides F +; [Wehrli]); see also +.:. Solon was rmly
entrenched among the Sieben Weisen (Dio. Laert. +.+; Snell +,:, off.; Oliva +,,
+++;) already by the fth century (cf. Hdt. +.:,; and Snell +,:, off.; cf. also
Chiasson +,o; and Brown +,,); Peisistratos was sometimes admitted by ancient
authors (such as Kritias? Cf. n. :,) into that circle (cf. Diog. Laert. +.+) and some-
times excluded, undoubtedly because of his tyranny (cf. Diog. Laert. +.,, [on Platos
refusal of Periandros] and +.+o [on Platos exclusion of Peisistratos and inclusion of
Myson of Khe
sia, but that view overlooks Plut. Mor. ;od, which indicates that
Solon was elected archon, diallakte
te
s simulta-
neously: this makes much sense in view of the circumstances of the Solonian crisis and
of Solons already proven patriotism. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +::; and Develin +,,, ;.
o. Cf. [Plat.] Hipp. ::,bc; and Lavelle +,oa, o. Deaths of tyrants are stock in
philosophical works: cf. Plat. Symp. +:c; Arist. Rhet. +o+b; Athen. o:a, oo:a; and
Notes to Pages :, +,
Plut. Mor. ;;oc. On Harmodios and Aristogeiton, see [Plat.] Hipp. ::,c; cf. Lavelle
+,oa, o; cf. also chapter I, n. . May we see a reection of the relationship of the
philosopher Plato and the tyrant Dionysios here? On Kroisos and Solon, see, for ex-
ample, How and Wells +,+:, +.ooo;; Podlecki +,;, o;; Chiasson +,o; Shapiro
+,,:; and Laurot +,,; cf. also Crane +,,o.
;. Demetrios of Phaleron wrote on laws (Diog. Laert. .+) and may well have
introduced Solon into them as the author of precedents for those he himself intro-
duced into Athens as tyrant. The notion that Solon sponsored Peisistratos tyranny
would have served Demetrios, who united philosopher and tyrant in himself. Cf.
Gottschalk +,o, +:.
. Cf. Davies +,;+, o; and Dillon and Garland +,,, +o.The information
of the Ath.Pol. does not appear to have been invented: Timonassas name and her fa-
thers could have derived from the ste
le
le
gia (and other Athenian oces), cf. Ath.Pol. o.:, o. (cf. Rhodes +,+, ,,o,
;o); cf. also :.: (the minimum age of the kosme
te
s [organizer] of ephe
boi [youth] is
forty, although this is a fourth-century oce). Rhodes (+,+, o) points out that this
age qualication pertained more to moral rectitude than combat experience in any
case. Surely the reverse will have been true in times of war: Schachermeyr (+,;b,
+oo) makes ;o B.C.E. the earliest year possible for Peisistratos polemarchate on
that basis and o likelier (cf. n. :). Pritchett (+,;, o, n. +;) notes that generalship
required vigor and obviously some youthfulness: age qualications may have been
suspended during emergencies or under special circumstances, and Peisistratos could
have taken advantage of a crisis situation and served as an underaged strate
gos.Yet he
will certainly not have become a commander of the Athenians as a youth (even on
Pritchetts criteria), and experience and the establishment of some sort of record of
successful service against Megara is implied: cf. Figueira +,a, :+. Cf. also Beloch
+,+, +.:.:,+,:; Cornelius +,:,, +o; Rhodes +,+, +o; and Lavelle +,,:b, +ff. See
also nn. and + and appendix D.
. Peisistratos generalship is likelier to have been attained by him sometime after
;, that is, after the age of thirty when he had had more time to demonstrate his mil-
itary capacities and become recognized as a war leader. Presumably, by ca. ;o, that
is, between thirty and thirty-ve years of age, Peisistratos had already performed at least
some of those great deeds. Cf. Beloch +,+, +.:.:,. See appendix D.
,. Cf. Schachermeyr +,;a, +:; and chapter II..B.
o. On old age among the Greeks, see n. + and appendix D. Peisistratos wife
could have had other children, live born who died young, stillborn, or miscarried,
who preceded Hippias and at least some of whom were named: indeed, we might
well imagine that Peisistratos rst- or second-born son was names Hippokrates, not
Hippias. But cf. n. +.
+. Davies +,;+, o: Peisistratos rst marriage . . . probably belongs to mid or
late ;os. Later he states that ;o is practically the latest possible birth-year for him
[sc. Hippias].As Hippias was eldest, one imagines that in any case his birth occurred
not long after the Peisistratos rst marriage. Cf. further appendix D.
:. Ath.Pol. +;. (Rhodes +,+, :::o); see also Hdt. .,; and Plut. Cato Mai.
:.. Cf. Beloch +,+, +.:.:,, :,;,; Schachermeyr +,;a, ++; and Ogden +,,o,
o.
. Kleisthenes: Hdt. .o;.+; o.++.+ (cf. Davies +,;+, ;;o). Kimon: Hdt.
o.,.:; Plut. Kim. .+ (cf. Davies +,;+, o:). On the citizenship law, cf. Patterson +,+.
On the problem of me
le
ne
ne
ne
since a thou-
sand Argives arrived to ght on Peisistratos behalf.There are in fact no good grounds
for considering that Timonassa held such an inferior status. See chapter III..C.
o. Cf. nn. and oo. The case of Kylon (chapter II..A.:) is not analogous to
Peisisitratos. Kylon was, to begin with, a member of the established Athenian aristoc-
racy, presumably had (or, rather, thought he had) a political backing at Athens, and
was an Olympic victor when he married Theagenes daughter: he had ample pres-
tige and, he must have thought, possibility. His prospects were attractive to Theagenes
(see chapter II..A.:). The same may be said for Megakles, who married Agariste,
daughter of Kleisthenes, tyrant of Sikyon (Hdt. o.+:o++; cf. Lavelle :ooo, ;;, n. ,;
and chapter II, n. +): he was very wealthy and, though of the enageis, was also of the
established Athenian nobility. Peisistratos was, of course, an outlander apparently of
no particular distinction, and, as we have seen (chapter III.:.A), less connected to the
Athenian establishment.
o,. Cf. Salmon +,, :;+ and n. :, but cf. also de Libero (+,,o, +, n. ,, and
+o), who contradicts Salmon. It is very dicult to see what other than leader and
so tyrant of the Ambrakiots Archinos could have been.
;o. Schachermeyr (+,;a, ++) opts for marriage in exile really because of the
illegitimacy of the Argive offspring (but cf. nn. and o;). Cf. also Stein-
Hlkeskamp (+,,, +), who observes the higher panhellenic prole of the
marriage to Timonassa (and notes Peisistratos aims) but seems in any case to disre-
gard the question of Gorgilos prot, as well as the entire controversy of information
about the marriage dating in the Ath.Pol.
Little can be concluded from the positioning of the opposite views of the mar-
riage dating in the Ath.Pol., but it is quite possible that the author arranged them
thus because the earlier stated view derived in fact from the more recent correct-
ingAtthis. See n. ;+.
;+. Perhaps Timonassas known (but now nonextant) whereabouts after the ex-
Notes to Pages .o, :
ile (viz., Argos) and the classication of her sons as nothoi, indicating nonresidence
in Attika, further supported the belief. Cf. Schachermeyr +,;a, ++: Die Ursache
liegt vielmehr darin, dass Peisistratos whrend seiner ersten Verbannung mit Timo-
nassa im Auslande lebte; diese Ehe musste er aber lsen, als er zurckkehrte, um die
Tochter des Megakles zu heiraten. So blieb Timonassa mit ihren Kindern in der
Fremde, jedenfalls in Argos, und die beiden Shne Hegesistratos und Iophon sind
berhaupt nie Athener geworden.Where is the evidence for all this? Cf. n. .
;:. Hdt. +.oo.+o+.:; Cf. also Lavelle :ooo, ;,:. Cf. chapter III.:.C..
;. Cf. Stein-Hlkeskamp +,,, +.
;. Cf. Berve +,o;, +.,o; Andrewes +,:a, ,;; and Lavelle +,,, ,o, n. :o.
;. Of course, deception is a stock characteristic of tyrants, and Peisistratos seems
to have been one of the basic contributors to the construction of the image: he was
well known for political trickery after all. Cf. chapter III.:.A.; cf. also Lavelle +,,,
+++; but cf. Lavelle :ooo, o;ff.
;o. Cf. Lavelle +,,, ++o and ++,; and :ooo, ff.
;;. Cf., for example, Andrewes +,:a, o+. It is quite possible, as we have seen,
that Peisistratos never abrogated the terms of the marriage to Timonassa: cf. Ogden
+,,o, .
;. Explanation of this causes Ogden (+,,o, o) much diculty. He nally de-
clares, in relation to Hegesistratos rights, that the rights of dynastic bastards are ever
a special case.He had already acknowledged the problems of even classifying Hege-
sistratos as a bastard.
;,. Contra Ogden +,,o, o, Sigeion was hardly Hegesistratosown little kingdom.
If we assume that Peisistratos married Timonassa during his rst tyranny, then it is also
possible that Hegesistratos, probably the oldest of the children, was conceived shortly
after the marriage in o+oo and so could have led the Argive contingent. Cf. n. o.
o. Schol. Nubes ; Lavelle +,,a, off.
:rrrxiix i
+. Ath.Pol. +;.+: Hrioiototo rv ouv ryxotrypoor tp op xoi oar0ovr
voop oo r ai 4io vrm o ovto, o ' ou r v xotr otp to am tov tu ovvo r tp ti-
o xovto xoi ti o im oo, o oo ' r v tp o p oir rivrv, r vo or ovto ri xooi; +,.o: (sc.
the younger Peisistratidai) aor omxov tp v o xo aoiv toi 'A0pvoi oi r ai Aaox-
ti oou o ovto, xotooo vtr tp v tuovvi oo rto tp v tou aoto trrutp v r tp
o ioto r atoxoi orxo xt. On Philoneos (and Peisistratos), cf. Schachermeyr
+,;a, +o; Cadoux +,, +o,; Rhodes +,+, +,+ff. and ::; Pesely +,,, ,; and
Develin +,,, o; on Harpaktides, cf. Cadoux +,, ++:+; Rhodes +,+, :o; and
Develin +,,, .The date for Harpaktides archonship relies really on two dates: (+)
that for Isagorass archonship (given by Dion.Halik. +.;.o in Ol. o.+ [= o;
B.C.E.]); and (:) that for Hipparchos death (++ B.C.E.).According to the Ath.Pol.
:+.+, Hippias was expelled in the fourth year before Isagoras archonship, i.e.,
+++o. Herodotos (.) says that Hippias ruled for four years, but Thucydides
(o.,.) and the author of the Ath.Pol. (+,.:) say that Hippias was expelled in the
fourth year after Hipparchos murder. Hipparchos was killed during the greater
Panathenaia, a four-year festival occurring in the third year of an Olympiad, presum-
ably (++ B.C.E.) (cf. Cadoux +,, ++:). (Thucydides also says [.o.] that the
: xo+rs +o r:trs :oo+o
Four Hundred were established in the hundredth year after the tyrants were ex-
pelled [i.e., +++o B.C.E.; cf. Andrewes +,+, +;], thus, +++o B.C.E. for the date
of Harpaktides.) The date for Philoneos is thus ::;. Jacoby (+,,, ;+, n. ,,) seems
to prefer :,: B.C.E. but makes rather a good case for ::;.
:. Hdt. .o.: (sc. the Peisistratidai) o ovtr r v 'A0pvoi mv r a' r tro r tr xoi
tipxovto; Arist. Pol. ++b, o: oi yo r uyr Hrioi ototo tuovvm v, m ot'
r v r troi tio xovto xoi tioi v r atoxoi orxo r tp tou tmv r tuo vvruorv, o x-
tmxoiorxo or oi aoior, motr to aovto ryrvrto rtp tioxovto xoi arvtr.
. Cf. Jacoby +,,, ;+, n. ,,, on the possibility that the archon list carried an-
notation: cf. n. o.
. Cf.Thuc. o.,. (the Archedike epigram; cf. Lavelle +,ob; and Sancisi-Weer-
denburg :oooa, +): the heirs of Hippias praise him as the best man of his day, an
inated appraisal to be sure (though Hippias was well reputed enough to be offered
Anthemous by Amyntas of Macedonia and Iolkos by the Thessalians [Hdt. .,]).This
is nonetheless a genuine demonstration of lial piety and even affection for their fa-
ther. Similar sentiments were probably expressed by Peisistratos offspring about him.
He far outstripped Hippias in accomplishment and glory, and his immediate heirs
had the means, and quite possibly the political need (smoother succession?), to com-
memorate him appropriately at his death. (We may nevertheless disagree with the
notion of heroization: cf. Cavalier [+,,/,]; and Hanah [+,,/,;].) A number of
Peisistratid monuments of less exalted types (votives, dedications, etc.) survived at
Athens from the era of the younger tyrants well into the fth century and beyond,
weathering a damnatio and the Persian invasion: the younger Peisistratos dedication
of the Altars of Apollo and of the Twelve Gods, although the latter was built over by
the fourth quarter of the fth century (Thuc. o..o; cf. chapter I, n. o), Hipparchos
herms ([Plat.] Hipp. ::c::,b; Kirchner and Dow +,;; Lavelle +,); and Hippar-
chos Akademy Wall (Suida s.v. to Iaao ov trii ov; cf. Lynch +,).These monu-
ments were probably either partly or entirely effaced, very likely around the time of
the Persian wars, inasmuch as their contents were deemed affronting and possibly
even outrageous.The survival of some few of them, however, suggests a proliferation
of Peisistratid monuments (if only during the latter period of the tyranny) and un-
even destruction of them. (On the [imperfect] obliteration of the tyrants monu-
ments, see Lavelle +,,b, :o,ff.; and +,,, ;o;;.) Perhaps the more obvious and ex-
alted ones were more thoroughly destroyed because they were deemed more
offensive: one imagines, for example, that no Peisistratid dedication or votive survived
on the akropolis (cf. Lavelle +,,, :;off.). Peisistratos passing was perhaps observed
in less conspicuous funerary inscriptions in the lower city and survived the process
of damnatio and even the Persian destruction (and Themistoklean wall construction),
as other lesser monuments did.Yet even if all commemorations were destroyed in the
damnatio (or if such commemorations never existed), Peisistratos death date was un-
doubtedly retained in oral tradition and tied to the archon year of Philoneos (cf. n.
+; cf. also Thomas +,,, +;+; and Lavelle +,,, oo, n. o).
. Cornelius (+,:,, ;,ff.) seems to have been rst to recognize this; cf. also Lavelle
+,,, ooff.
o. Cf. Pherek. FrGrHist F :: 4ioio . . . tou or Iaaoxri op, r ' ou Hovo0p-
voio rtr0p. . . . ; Ath.Pol. .+: r a' 'Aiotoi ou o ovto, Ao xmv tou 0roou
r0pxrv (although Jacoby expresses some doubts about such annotations [+,,, ,ff.,
Notes to Page .:: :
+;;o]). The archon list of the Peisistratid era (cf. chapter I, n. +:) was apparently
well known to Thucydides (cf. o..o), although his diagnosis of how individuals were
elected to the archonship need have been based on no more than deduction (cf. Ja-
coby +,,, +;;o; and Lavelle +,,, o, n. :). Such information can also have been
located ultimately in oral tradition (contra Jacoby +,,, +;; cf. Thomas +,,, ++
and +;+ and n. o.
;. Thuc. o..:: Hrioiototou yo ypoiou trrutpoovto rv tp tuovvioi
xt. Ath.Pol. +;.+ (see n. +; cf. Rhodes +,+, ::). Cf. also Schachermeyr +,a, +o;
Cadoux +,, +o,; and Develin +,,, o.
. I am thinking of Hellanikos, but not ruling out Kleidemos or Androtion.
,. Cf. Lavelle +,,, oo, n. .
+o. Cf. Falkner +,,o (with a fuller bibliography). Solons hebdomads proceed
from the apparent assumption that seventy was the threshold of death. Solon did not
invent that number but was famous by the fth century for asserting it (cf. Hdt. +.:.:;
Falkner +,,o, , n. :): his reply to Mimnermos (F :oW; Falkner +,,o, ,+o) under-
scores his assertion of the hebdomadic scheme. Cf. also n. +:; and appendix C, n. +.
++. Cf. n. +:; and appendix C, n. +.
+:. On Peisistratos, cf. How and Wells +,+:, +.o,; Beloch +,+, +.:, :,:: Das
Datum des Todes [sc. of Peisistratos] kann ebenfalls ungefhr richtig sein, da der
Tyrann im hheren Alter . . . gestorben ist, und er :; nahe an ;o Jahre gezhlt
haben mag; and Rhodes +,+, :: (apparently after Schachermeyr):Pisistratus will
have been about seventy-ve [sc. at death]. Although Peisistratos could not have
been classed a gero
n (old man) (cf.Thuc. o..:) until he had attained his sixtieth year
(cf. Dio. Laert. .+o; and Sallares +,,+, +;), a strategia held during the oos implies
that he was nearer to forty by the first tyranny and around seventy when he died in
::; (cf. Falkner +,,o, , n. ::).
+. Cf. chapter III.:.C and .B.
+. Ath.Pol. +.+; Plut. Sol. :.; cf. Marm. Par. Ep. o; Euseb. Chron. (Ol. .
o+oo B.C.E. [although there is a variant for Ol. .; cf. Cadoux +,, +o]); cf. also
Cadoux +,, +oo; Rhodes +,+, :o+; and Develin +,,, :.The date o+oo B.C.E.
also agrees with the length of Peisistratos tyranny inclusive of exiles given by Aris-
totle (Pol. ++b, +) and in the Ath.Pol. (+;.+). See also n. +o.
+. It could be argued that no inscription or other durable medium might be ex-
pected to have survived commemorating it explicitly. Why would the Peisistratids
have kept it? Would the hostility of the Athenians not have worked against commem-
orating it? Wouldnt the Persian destruction have obliterated it? Aristions graphe
(Ath.Pol. +.+; cf. Rhodes +,+, :oo), which purportedly proposes the rst tyranny,
I take to be a ction of literature and of no bearing on the question of what ocial
documents might have survived from the sixth century into the fth and fourth cen-
turies B.C.E. (cf. Lavelle, ,o,+, n. +; and chapter III, n. :). (Pace Cadoux +,, +o;
cf. Beloch +,+, +.:, :,+; and Moss +,o,, o [videnment un anachronisme.] The
problems with the survival of any document citing the establishment of the rst
tyranny of Peisistratos are further compounded not only by the tyrannys general
odium in the fth century but also because such a document might harm those who
had collaborated with the tyrants but survived politically into the fth century by
recollecting their unpopular actions (cf.Thomas +,,, ++; and Lavelle, ,ff.). On the
other hand, we nd that we have really no reason to infer general hostility among
:o xo+rs +o r:trs :+:+
the Athenians to Peisistratos tyranny either at its beginning or throughout. Of course,
other memories of the Peisistratids (and other tyrants: see n. +o) survived, and, for
whatever reason, because the rst tyranny is reckoned in accordance with the archon
year of Komeas that information seems to have survived, too.
+o. Cf. nn. o and +. Admittedly, the information about Damasias usurpation of
power (Ath.Pol. +.:) could have depended on no more than the prorogation of his
archonship: cf. Cadoux (+,, ;, n. ,, and +o:), who states that the probability
that [Damasias illegal tenure] was described in the archon-list as ovoio is very
high; Rhodes +,+, +:; Develin +,,, o; and chapter III, n. :. On the other hand,
the greatest triumph of tyranny was at Palle
ne
ne
, which, in
view of the Athenians opinion of old age, seems to be rather too old for initiating and
maintaining a viable tyranny for eighteen years: cf. appendix C, n. +. Indeed, as any
maturing person will attest, there is a great deal of difference in vitality between the
ages of fty, fty-ve, and sixty yearsespecially for those who are very active in their
youths and have endured much hardship. Admittedly, in all of this we are really ca-
pable of nothing more than reasonable calculations, and Schachermeyrs range of years
is certainly credible. It is possible, though I think not really plausible on contempo-
rary Greek views of old age and retirement, that Peisistratos was one of those remark-
ably vital Athenians who was active in rather extreme age right up to his death: his
life, unlike Sophokles or even Sokrates, was very eventful and full of hardship.
:. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +,;,,.
:. Cf. Cadoux +,, +o;; and Develin +,,, .The date is reckoned from the
archonship of Komeas (see n. +).
:. Cf. Rhodes +,+, +,.
:o. There is a problem here in that ten yearsmay actually be an imprecise gure,
amounting, after all, to a really long time rather than precisely ten years. It is, how-
ever, the best gure we have from our sources.
:;. Cf. chapter III..C.
:rrrxiix r
+. Ath.Pol. :+. (cf. Rhodes +,+, :: [cf. also +o], who notes the dis-
parities between Kleisthenes divisions and the parties). Cf. Jacoby +,ob, +:[The
Notes to Pages .:,: :;
Herodotean division] gives the impression of being earlier than Kleisthenes division
into ootp, aooio, and rooyrio. Cf. also nn. : and . (This appendix is substan-
tially based on a portion of an article that appeared in Classical et Mediaevalia +
[Lavelle :ooo, ,o+oo]. I am very grateful to the editors of that journal for their per-
mission to draw on it thusly.)
:. Philochoros FGrHist : F +o;: (= Str. ,.+.o [,:] (tm v Hovoioviom v tro-
oo mv o vtmv, Ai yr m tr xoi Au xou xoi Ho ovto xoi trto tou Ni oou, xoi
tp 'Attixp ri tr ttoo r p oior0ri op, o Ni oo tp v Mryoi oo o oi xoi
xti ooi tp v Niooi ov); cf. schol. Ar. Lys. (Ai yri r v tp v aoo to o otu r i
Hu0i ou, Ho ovti or tp v Hooi ov, Au xm or tp v Aioxi ov, Ni om or tp v
Mryoi oo). Cf. also Andron (FrGrHist +o F +). Cf. Hopper +,o+, +,;ff. Pace Ja-
coby +,ob, :,: tp v aoo to o otu is not equivalent to p aoo (ari ) to o otu
(even in the mind of the scholiast): rather, this is a synonym for the Athenian (i.e.,
Kephissian) Plain, and all three Attic names agree with the Herodotean party names.
See nn. , and .
. Cf. Jacoby +,a, o: As regards the position of Aigeus, tradition since
Sophokles assigns to him a kind of supreme royalty . . . and Ph. probably agreed with
this tradition.That position was natural as he resided in the aoi and ruled the plain
belonging to the city. Cf. also Thuc. :..+; and Gomme +,o, +o:, on the Spartan
invasion of Attika in o B.C.E., commenting on to ar oiov: the basin of the
Kephissos (the southern half of which comprised the town trittyes).
. Thuc. :..+; cf. Gomme +,o, :.+o: (on the paralia): i.e., the whole of the
coastal belt of Attica from Aixone to Sounion and from Sounion to Rhamnous
(where it looks toward Euboea), which is not the same as the area of all coastal trit-
tyes of Kleisthenes organization (this included all the land of Aigaleos as well). Cf.
also Hornblower +,,+, :;.
. Sophokles, in the fth century B.C.E. (Strabo ,.+.o p. ,: [= Soph. F +,
(Nauck); F : (Pearson)]), described the diakria as the garden lying opposite to Eu-
boiaand Hesychios, much later, as the area from Parnes to Brauron.Cf. Hesychios
s.v. Aioxri; cf. also Hopper +,o+, +,+,, :++;; and Lewis +,o, :, n. :o.
o. Jacoby (+,a, :o) wrongly detaches Eleusis and the Thriasian Plain from
Nisos to give them to Aigeos. As to Nisos domain, Philochoros and Andron of Ha-
likarnassos (n. :) agree, the former making Nisos share extend from the Isthmos as
far as the Pythion,while the latter [from the Isthmos] as far as Eleusis and the Thri-
asian plain. Jacobys error turns on his adamant designation of the Pythion as po-
sitioned on the boundary between Attica and Megaris,that is, in the Thriasian Plain
over against the Megarid, when in fact we should be seeking it beyond the cho
ra (land)
of Eleusis, toward Athens, over against the Athenian (= Kephissian) Plain.The Pythion
should therefore be the famous temple of Apollo at Daphni, a natural division be-
tween the city and its plain on the one hand and the land of Eleusis on the other.
Aigeos domain would naturally have included the Kephissian Plain but not Eleusis
or the Thriasian Plain (see nn. :), since these would belong to Nisos as part of what
was then the Megarid. Nisos portion proceeded north, west, and southwest from
there to include Eleusis, the Thriasian Plain, and the Megarid. Philochoros and An-
drons general agreement suggests that the asty and the pedion as far as Daphni were
considered part of the same portion.Thus, the city and the adjacent plainwere syn-
onymous, as they should reasonably be. Pace Jacoby +,a, :,, that makes three of
: xo+rs +o r:tr :+,
the four names of the ancient divisions of Attika agree in their essentials with the
party names found in Herodotos.
;. Jacoby +,a, +; cf. Hopper +,o+, +,,. Jacoby is, I think, quite wrong to
say that these three parts of Attica [i.e., paralia, pedion (plain), and diakria] never were
. . . even mythological units: cf. Hopper +,o+, +,:It would seem, then, that in the
classical period, and probably earlier, three regions were recognized: Pedion, Paralia,
and Diakria, quite apart from the question of the parties. Cf. n. ++.
. The myth was known to Sophokles (n. ), but seems to be alluded to in a vase
painting by the Syriskos painter dated ca. o B.C.E. (Beazley +,:, +; Jacoby +,b,
+).We should be fairly condent that this mythical division was understood by the
Athenians from at least the early part of the sixth century.
,. Jacoby +,ob, :,; cf. Hereas the Megarian (FrGrHist o F ), countering
Athenian claims that Salamis was Athenian because of the way bodies were arranged
in prehistoric graves there. Cf. also Plut. Sol. +o, where other Athenian propagandizings
pertaining to Solon and the Solonian period seem to be described. Cf. chapter II..E.
+o. Jacoby (+,ob, :,) further suggests that such claims were also meant to cur-
tail Megarian pretensions to Attic land, viz., the Thriasian Plain and Eleusis. On the
victory at Nisaia, see chapter II..F.
++. Cf. Hopper +,o+, +, in regard to political divisions: The vagueness of
Herodotos seems to show that already in his time the sixth century situation was not
clearly understood. Cf. also Lavelle +,,, ::ff.
+:. On Agariste, see chapter III, n. o; on Alkmeon, see chapter III, nn. ;.
+. Cf. Berve +,o;, +.; and Lavelle +,,, ,, n. :.
:rrrxiix r
+. Cf. scholia ad loc. (Scheer +,, o); cf. also Sandys +,:+, +::; and Mooney
+,:+, +:.This appendix is dedicated to M. F. McGregor, an esteemed teacher.
:. E Lyk. Alex. +:o (Scheer); Step. Byz. s.v. Poi xpo. On Aineia: cf. Hdt.
;.+:.:; Livy .+o.;; Merritt, Wade-Gerry, and McGregor Athenian Tribute Lists
(ATL) I, ::o:+, oo, and n. :. On the foundation of Aineia, see Livy o..,; cf.
Edson +,;, ,,o. (Edson [,o,+] is undoubtedly right to say that the original Thra-
cian name suggested foundation by Aeneas: see n. :o.) Aineia was memorable in some
traditions as the burial spot of Anchises. On Ainos/Aineia, cf. also Edson +,;, ,o, n.
:+; and Rhodes +,+, :o;.
. Str. ; Frs. :+, and :.
. Cf. Hdt. ;.+:.:; and Livy .+o.;: quindecim milia passuum ea urbs abest
(sc.Thessalonika). Cf. Edson (+,;, ), who says the distance is eleven English miles.
. Cf. Blackman +,,,:ooo, : (:+ km sw); and :ooo:oo+, ,.
o. Cf. Ps.Skym. o:;: (tpv oxov or xoourvpv Aivriov); Dion. Hal. +.,..
Megalo Karabournou: ATL :, o. (Contra Edson: cf. n. ;.) Mount Khoriatis:
Cf. Edson +,;, ,. Casson (+,:o, :) places Rhaike
los at Kalamaria on
Mikro Karabournou (Karabournaki?), while Hammond (+,;:, +off.) suggests that
Rhaike
los was the last part of the tableland running toward Aineia. Superior sites for
residency are evident in the area.
;. ATL I, o; Edson +,;, ,;Viviers +,;, +,; cf. also Cole +,;, :. Schacher-
meyr (+,;b, +) accepts the synonymity of Aineia and Rhaike
los.
Notes to Pages .:., :,
. Edson +,;, ,o,+. Cole (+,;, :, n. ) accepts Edsons corrections of ATL
but suggests that Rhaike
los was a
toponym still used in the fourth century B.C.E. is based on the use of xoritoi in
the Ath.Pol. Rather than indicating common use, it surely refers to the authors
sources use, which obviously need not have been in the present tense. Once again,
however, source is not considered by him.The insistence of the ATL authors (I, o,
nn. + and :) that Peisistratos changed the name of Rhaike
los to the authority of Aristotle and his statement that Aristotle (as a native
Chalkidian) had opportunities for very special knowledge of the Macedonian area
(cf. Cole +,;, :, who seems to follow him in this line of thinking) in part be-
cause I believe, with Rhodes, that AP was not Aristotle. I am more in disagreement,
though, with the assumption that a native of Stagira, living about two hundred years
after the events and at some distance from the area of Rhaike
los.
:o. ATL I, +;o. Dikaias circumstances, on the other hand, were not as outstand-
ing, and one suspects that its relationship to Aineia was more that of a satellite colony.
The Eretrians became the sole proprietors of the Aineia region after Peisistratos de-
parture. Cf. Pliny NH .+o.o; and Viviers +,;, +,,. See also n. :;.
:;. Hdt. ;.+:; cf. How and Wells +,+:, :.+;:: Aivrio is the only town of any
importance (Livy xliv.+o.:).An inscription, mentioning the ethnic Dikaiopolitai,
has been found + km west of Ayia Paraskevi at Toumba Angellaki, about +o km south-
east of the Thessalonike
`
Adams, S. M. +,;. Sophocles the Playwright. Toronto.
dAgostino, B. +,,o. Relations between Campania, Southern Etruria, and the
Aegean in the Eighth Century B.C.In Greek Colonists and Native Populations, ed.
J.-P. Descoudres, ;o. Oxford.
Ahl, F. +,,+. Sophocles Oedipus: Evidence and Self-Conviction. Ithaca.
Alexander, J.W. +,,.Was Cleisthenes an Archon? CJ :o;+.
Allen, A. +,:.A Double Hendiadys in Sophocles. Glotta oo::.
Anderson, G. :ooo. Alkmeonid Homelands, Political Exile, and the Unication of
Attika. Historia ,:;+:.
Andreev,Y. +,,,.Tyrants and Heroes: Historical Stylization in the Political Practice
of the Old Tyranny. VDI :::;.
Andrewes, A. +,o. The Greek Tyrants. London.
. +,;;.Kleisthenes Reform Bill. CQ :;::+.
. +,+. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides,V. Oxford.
. +,:a. The Tyranny of Pisistratus. In Cambridge Ancient History,
.:,:+o. Cambridge, England.
. +,:b. The Growth of the Athenian State. In Cambridge Ancient History,
.:oo,+. Cambridge, England.
Angiolillo, S. +,.Pisistrato e Artemide Brauronia. PP :+::+.
. +,,;. Arte e cultura nell Atene di Pisistrato e dei Pisistratidi. Bari.
Anhalt, E. K. +,,. Solon the Singer: Politics and Poetics. Boston.
Antonelli, L. :ooo.I Pisistratidi al Sigeo: Note Pisistratee. Anemos +:,.
Antoniou, M. +,,o. BRAURWN. Athens.
Arieti, J. +,,. Discourses on the First Book of Herodotus. Lanham, Maryland.
Arnush, M. +,,.The Career of Peisistratos, Son of Hippias. Hesperia o:o:.
Arrowsmith, P. +,.Kypselos and the Philaidai,Theagenes and Kylon. LCM ,:;;.
Austin, M. M. +,,o.Greek Tyrants and the Persians, o;, B.C.CQ o::,oo.
Baba, Keiji. +,,o.The Macedonian/Thracian Coastland and the Greeks in the Sixth
and Fifth Centuries B.C. Kodai +:+:.
Badian, E. +,;+.Archons and Strategoi. Antichthon :+.
Bakaoukas, M. :oo+. Solons Forgotten Genealogy. Electronic Antiquity o.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/VoN+/.
Bakhuizen, S. C. +,;o. Chalcis-in-Euboea, Iron and Chalcidians Abroad. Leiden.
Bakker, E. J., I. J. F. DeJong, and H. van Wees, eds. :oo:. Brills Companion to Herodo-
tus. Leiden.
Balcer, J. M. +,;:. The Persian Occupation of Thrace. In Actes du II
e
Congres inter-
national des Etudes du sud-est Europen, :+. Athens.
. +,.Persian Occupied Thrace (Skudra). Historia ;:+:;.
. +,,. The Persian Conquest of the Greeks, ,, B.C. (Xenia Heft ).
Konstanz.
Barber, R. +,,o. Blue Guide: Greece. London.
Barber, R. L. N. +,;. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Iowa City, Iowa.
Barcel, P. +,,. Basileia, Monarchia, Tyrannis. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung und
Beurteilung von Alleinherrschaft im vorhellenistischen Griechenland. Stuttgart.
Beazley, J. D. +,:. Attische Vasenmaler. Berlin.
. +,;. The Pan-Painter. Mainz.
Beck, M. L. +,;,.Settlement Patterns in the Brauron Valley: An Archaeological Sur-
vey. Unpublished research paper.
Beloch, K. J. +,+. Griechische Geschichte I.:.. Strassbourg.
Bencsik, A. +,,. Schemeltum und Macht: Studien zum Typus sofo;~ ajnhvr bei Herodot.
Bonn.
Bengston, H. +,,. Einzelpersnlichkeit und athenischer Staat in der Zeit des Peisistratos
und Militiades. Munich.
Bengston, H., and E. Bloedow. +,. A History of Greece from the Beginnings to the
Byzantine Era. Ottawa.
Berthold, R. :oo:. The Athenian Embassies to Sardis and Cleomenes Invasion of
Attica. Historia +::,o;.
Berve, H. +,;. Miltiades, Studien zur Geschichte des Mannes und seiner Zeit. Berlin.
. +,o;. Die Tyrannis bei dem Griechen, III. Munich.
Best, J. G. P. +,o,. Thracian Peltasts and Their Inuence on Greek Warfare. Groningen.
Billigmeier, J., and K. A. Dusing. +,+.The Origin and Function of the naukraroi at
Athens. An Etymological and Historical Explanation. TAPA +++:+++o.
Blackman, D. +,,o,;.Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for ::,,
++:. London.
. +,,;,. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for :,::,
++:. London.
. +,,,:ooo. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for :.ooo,
++. London.
. :ooo:oo+. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for .ooo.oo:,
++. London.
. :oo+:.Archaeology in Greece.Archaeological Reports for .oo:.oo.,+++o.
London.
Blakeway, A. A. +,:. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Commerce with
Italy, Sicily and France in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C. ABSA
:+;o:o.
Blok, J. :ooo.Phyes Procession: Culture, Politics and Peisistratid Rule.In Peisistratos
o ii iii otr:rn.
and the Tyranny: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, +;.
Amsterdam.
Boardman, J. +,;.Early Euboean Pottery and History. ABSA ::+:,.
. +,;:.Herakles, Peisistratos, and Sons. RA o:;;:.
. +,;.Herakles, Peisistratos, and Eleusis. JHS ,:++:.
. +,;. Greek Sculpture:The Archaic Period. London.
. +,o. The Greeks Overseas. London.
. +,,.Herakles, Peisistratos, and the Unconvinced. JHS +o,:+,.
Bockisch, G. +,,o.Alkmeon bei Kroisos. Acta Classica :o:,+;.
Boedeker, D. +,,.Presenting the Past in Fifth-Century Athens. In Democracy, Em-
pire and the Arts in Fifth Century Athens, ed. D. Boedeker and K. Raaaub, +:o:.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Boedeker, D., and K. Raaaub, eds. +,,. Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth Cen-
tury Athens. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Boersma, J. +,;o. Athenian Building Policy from :/o to ,o,/, B.C. Groningen.
. :ooo. Peisistratos Building Activity Reconsidered. In Peisistratos and the
Tyranny:A Reappraisal of the Evidence, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ,o.Amster-
dam.
Bhme, R. +,. Peisistratos und sein homerischer Dichter. Bern.
Bonner, C. +,oo.The Omen in Herodotus VI.+o;. CP +::.
Bornitz, H.-F. +,o. Herodot-Studien. Berlin.
Borza, E. +,,.Some Toponym Problems in Eastern Macedonia. AHB :ooo;.
. +,,o. In the Shadow of Olympus. Princeton.
Bosworth, A. B. +,,. Heracleides of Pontus and the Past. In Ventures into Greek
History, ed. I.Worthington, +:;. Oxford.
Bradeen, D.W. +,;.The Lelantine War and Pheidon of Argos. TAPA ;: ::+.
. +,o.The Fifth Century Archon List. Hesperia ::+;:o.
Brandt, H. +,,;. Herakles und Peisistratos oder Mythos und Geschichte: Anmer-
kungen zur Interpretation vorklassicher Vasenbilder. Chiron :;::.
Brannan, P. T. +,o. Herodotus and History: The Constitutional Debate. Traditio
+,::;.
Brenne, S. +,,. Ostraka and the Process of Ostrakophoria. In The Archaeology of
Athens and Attica under Democracy, ed.W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia,T. L. Shear, Jr.,
H. A. Shapiro, and F. Frost, +:. Oxford.
Brown,T. S. +,;. The Greek Historians. Lexington, Massachusetts.
. +,,.Solon and Croeus (Hdt. +.:,). AHB :+.
Bruneau, P., and J. Ducat. +,o. Guide de Delos. Paris.
Bury, J. B., and R. Meiggs. +,;. A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great.
New York.
Bushnell, R. +,. Prophesying Tragedy: Sign and Voice in SophoclesTheban Plays. Ithaca,
New York.
Busolt, G. +,. Griechische Geschichte, III. Gotha.
Busolt, G., and H. Swoboda. +,:o. Griechische Staatskunde. Munich.
Cadoux, T. J. +,. The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides. JHS o:
;o+:.
Camp, J. M. +,o. The Athenian Agora. London.
. +,,.Before Democracy: The Alkmaionidai and the Peisistratidai. In The
Bibliography ;
Archaeology of Athens and Attica under Democracy, ed. W. D. E. Coulson, O. Palagia,
T. L. Shear, Jr., H. A. Shapiro, and F. J. Frost, ;+:. Oxford.
. :oo+. The Archaeology of Athens. New Haven, Connecticut.
Campbell, D. +,o;. Greek Lyric Poetry: A Selection of Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac and Iambic
Poetry. London.
Cassola, F. +,.Erodoto e la Tirannide. In Xenia: Scritti in Onore di Pietro Treves, ed.
F. Broilo, :. Roma.
Casson, S. +,+:.The Topography of Megara. ABSA +,: ;++.
. +,:o. Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, Their Relations to Greece from the Earliest
Times down to the Time of Philip, Son of Amyntas. Oxford.
Castriota, D. +,,:. Myth, Ethos and Actuality: Ocial Art in Fifth Century B.C. Athens.
Madison,Wisconsin.
Castritius, H. +,;:. Die Okkupation Thrakiens durch die Perser und Sturz des
athenischen Tyrannen Hippias. Chiron ::++.
Catling, H.W. +,o+.Archaeology in Greece.Archaeological Reports for ::o:::,
. London.
. +,+:.Archaeology in Greece.Archaeological Reports for :::::., o:.
London.
. +,:.Archaeology in Greece.Archaeological Reports for ::.::,, o:.
London.
. +,.Archaeology in Greece.Archaeological Reports for ::,::, o,.
London.
. +,,. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for :::::,
++o. London.
Catling, H.W., and I. S. Lemos. +,,o. Lefkandi II:The Protogeometric Building at Toumba,
Part I (series eds. M. Popham, P. G. Calligas, and L. H. Sackett). London.
Cavalier, K. +,,. Did Not Potters Portray Peisistratos as Herakles Posthumously?
Electronic Antiquity :, March. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V:N.
Cawkwell, G. +,,.Early Greek Tyranny and the People. CQ : ;o.
Chambers, M. H. +,. The Formation of the Tyranny of Pisistratus. In Actes du
VII
e
Congres de la Federation Internationale des Associations Etudes Classiques, o;:.
Budapest.
. +,,o. Aristoteles. Staat der Athener. Berlin.
Chiasson, C. +,o. The Herodotean Solon. GRBS :;: :,o:.
Chirot, D. +,,. Modern Tyrants. Princeton, New Jersey.
Cobb-Stevens,V.,T. Figueira, and G. Nagy. +,.Introduction.In Theognis of Megara:
Poetry and Polis, ed.T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy, +. Baltimore.
Cobet, J. +,;. Philologische Stringenz und die Evidenz fr Herodotos Publika-
tionsdatum. Athenaeum o:o++.
Coldstream, N. +,;;. Geometric Greece. London.
Cole, J.W. +,;.Peisistratus on the Strymon. G&R ::::.
Cole, Susan G. +,,. Domesticating Artemis. In The Sacred and the Feminine in
Ancient Greece, ed. S. Blundell and M.Williamson, :;. London.
Connor, W. R. +,;+. The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens. Princeton, New
Jersey.
. +,;;. Tyrannis Polis. In Ancient and Modern: Studies in Honor of G. F. Else,
ed. J. DArms and J. Eadie, ,+o,. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
ii iii otr:rn.
. +,. Thucydides. Princeton.
. +,;.Tribes, Festivals and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political Ma-
nipulation in Archaic Greece. JHS +o;:oo.
Cook, R. M. +,;.Pots and Pisistratan Propaganda. JHS +o;:+o;o,.
Cornelius, F. +,:,. Die Tyrannis in Athen. Munich.
Cornford, F. +,o;. Thucydides Mythistoricus. London.
Couat, A. +,,+. Alexandrian Poetry under the Ptolemies, trans. J. Loeb. Chicago.
Coulton, J. J. +,;o. Brauron. In Princeton Encyclopaedia of Classical Sites, ed. P Still-
well, +oo. Princeton.
Crane, G. +,,o.The Prosperity of Tyrants: Bacchylides, Herodotus and the Contest
for Legitimacy. Arethusa :,:;.
Creuzer, F., and J. C. F. Baehr, ed. and comms. +o. Herodoti. Musae I. Leipzig.
Cromey, R. +,+:.The Peloponnesian Neleidai. Praktika +:,o.
. +,.On Deinomache. Historia :o+.
Crosby, M. +,,.The Altar of the Twelve Gods. Hesperia Supplement :::+o.
Csapo, E., and M. Miller. +,, Democracy, Empire, and Art: Toward a Politics of
Time and Narrative. In Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth Century Athens, ed.
D. Boedeker and K. Raaaub, ;+:o. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Culasso Gastaldi, E. +,,;. Une donna di classe: Koisyra. Miscellanea greca e romana
:+:.
Daverio Rocchi, G. +,;+.Motivi economici e pressioni sociali nelle origini delles-
pansionismo ateniese. RIL +o::;:.
David, E. +,.Solons Electoral Program. RSA +:;::.
Davidson, J. A. +,.Peisistratus and Homer. TAPA o:+:+.
Davie, J. N. +,;,. Herodotos and Aristophanes on Monarchy. G&R Ser. :,
:o:+ooo.
Davies, J. K. +,;+. Athenian Propertied Families, oo,oo B.C. Oxford.
. +,,. The Tradition about the First Sacred War.In Greek Historiography, ed.
S. Hornblower, +,:+:. Oxford.
Dawe, R. D. +,:. Sophocles. Oedipus Tyrannus. Cambridge, England.
Day, J., and M. Chambers. +,o:. Aristotles History of the Athenian Democracy. Berkeley.
Demand, N. +,;. Herodotus Encomium of Athens: Science or Rhetoric?AJP
+o:;o.
Desborough, V. A. +,o. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors: An Archaeological
Survey, c. :.oo:ooo B.C. Oxford.
Despoine, A. +,. SINDOS. Arcaiologiko Mouseio Qessalonikh~. Thessa-
lonike.
Detienne, M., and J.-P. Vernant. +,;. Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Soci-
ety. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
Develin, R. +,. Herodotus and the Alkmeonids. In The Craft of the Ancient Histo-
rian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, ed. J. Eadie and J. Ober, +:,.Ann Arbor.
. +,,. Athenian Archons, :,,.: B.C. Oxford.
Dewald, C., and J. Marincola. +,;. A Selective Introduction to Herodotean Stud-
ies. In Herodotus and the Invention of History, ed. D. Boedeker and J. Peradotto,
Arethusa :o:,o.
. +,,. Introduction and Notes. In Herodotos.The Histories, trans. R.Water-
eld, ixxli, ,;. Oxford.
Bibliography ,
Diamant, S. +,:. Theseus and the Unication of Attika. In Studies in Attic Epigra-
phy, History and Topography presented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia Supplement :),
;. Princeton.
Dillon, M., and L. Garland, eds. +,,. Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents
from Ancient Times to the Death of Socrates (c. :oo, B.C.). London.
Donlan,W. +,;o.Archilochus, Strabo, and the Lelantine War. TAPA +o+:++:.
Dover, K. +,;o. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, IV. Oxford.
Dowden, K. +,,. Death and the Maiden. London.
Drger, P. +,,. Die Ehe des Peisistratos mit der Tochter des Megakles (Hdt. +,
o+,+f.). Gymnasium +o:+,,.
Dusing, K. A. +,;,. The Athenians and the North in Archaic Times. Ph.D. diss., Univer-
sity of Cincinnati.
Earle, M. L., ed. +,o+. The Oedipus of Sophocles. New York.
Edmonds, L. :oo:.Oedipus as Tyrant in Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus. Syllecta Clas-
sica +:o+o.
Edmondson, C. +,o.Brauronian Artemis in Athens. AJA ;::+oo.
Eder, W. +,. Political SelfCondence and Resistance: The Role of the Demos
and Plebs after the Expulsion of the Tyrant in Athens and the King in Rome.
In Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity, ed.T. Yuge and M. Doi, o;.
Leiden.
Edson, C. +,;.Notes on the Thracian Phoros. CP ::+o.
Edwards, J. E. +o. The History of Herodotus. London.
Ehrenberg,V. +,o:. The People of Aristophanes. New York.
. +,;. From Solon to Socrates: Greek History and Civilization during the Sixth and
Fifth Centuries B.C. London.
Ellis, J. R., and G. R. Stanton. +,o.Factional Conict and Solons Reforms.Phoenix
:::,++o.
Else, G. F. +,;.The Origins of Tragoidia. Hermes :+;o.
Evans, J. A. S. +,.Herodotus and Marathon. Florilegium o:+:.
. +,;. Herodotus ,.;. and the Publication Date of the Histories.CP
::::o:.
. +,,+. Herodotus, Explorer of the Past. Princeton.
Falkner,T., and J. de Luce, eds. +,,. Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature. Albany.
. +,,o.The Politics and the Poetics of Solons Ten Ages. CJ o:++.
Farnell, L. +,o. Cults of the Greek States. Oxford.
Fehling, D. +,,. Herodotus and His Sources. Leeds.
Ferngren, G. B. +,;:. Studies in Early Greek Tyranny. Diss., University of British Co-
lumbia.
Ferrari, G. +,,,. Heracles, Pisistratus, and the Panathenaea. Metis ,+o:
:+,:o.
Ferrill, A. +,;.Herodotus on Tyranny. Historia ::,.
Figueira,T. J. +,+. Aegina: Society and Politics. New York.
. +,.The Ten Archontes of ;,/; at Athens. Hesperia :;;.
. +,a. Chronological Table: Archaic Megara, oooo B.C. In Theognis of
Megara: Poetry and the Polis, ed.T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy, :o:o. Baltimore.
. +,b. The Theognidea and Megarian Society. In Theognis of Megara: Po-
etry and the Polis, ed.T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy, ++:. Baltimore.
o ii iii otr:rn.
. +,o.Xanthippos, Father of Perikles, and the prytaneis of the naukraroi.His-
toria ::;;,.
. +,,+. Athens and Aegina in the Age of Imperial Colonization. Baltimore.
. +,,.The Strange Death of Draco on Aegina.In Nomodeiktes: Greek Stud-
ies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, ed. R. M. Rosen and J. Farrell, :;o. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Finkelberg, M. +,. Ajaxs Entry in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. CQ
:++.
. +,,.Sophocles Tr. o, and Herodotus. Mnemosyne :+o:.
Finley, M. I. +,,.The Elderly in Classical Antiquity. In Old Age in Greek and Latin
Literature, ed.T. M. Falkner and J. de Luce, +:o. Albany, New York.
Flory, S. +,;. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit.
Ford, Andrew. +,,,. Reading Homer from the Rostrum: Poems and Laws in
Aeschines Against Timarchus. In Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, ed.
S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, :+o. Cambridge, England.
Fornara, C. +,;+. Evidence for the Date of Herodotus Publication. JHS ,+:
:.
Fornara, C., and L. Samons, III. +,,+. Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles. Berkeley.
Fornis Vaquero, C. +,,:. Delfos y Delos en la Tirania Arcaica Ateniense y Samia.
Polis :;,,+.
Forsdyke, S. :oo+. Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus Histories. AJP
+:::o:.
. :oo:.Greek History, c. :o B.C. In Brills Companion to Herodotus, ed.
E. Bakker, I. E. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees, :+o. Leiden.
Forrest,W. G. +,o.The First Sacred War. BCH o::.
. +,;.Colonization and the Rise of Delphi. Historia o:+oo;.
Francis, E. D., and M.Vickers. +,. The Oenoe Painting in the Stoa Poikile, and
Herodotus Account of Marathon. ABSA o:,o++.
Fraser, P. M. +,o,;o. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological Reports for ::,o,
+. London.
Frazer, J. G., comm. +,;. Pausanias. London.
Freeman, K. +,:o. The Work and Life of Solon. London.
French, A. +,;.Solon and the Megarian Question. JHS ;;::o.
. +,,.The Party of Peisistratos. G&R o:o;.
. +,;. Sixth-Century Athens:The Sources. Sydney.
French, E. B. +,,,o. Archaeology in Greece. In Archaeological Reports for
:::o, :. London.
. +,,o,+. Archaeology in Greece. In Archaeological Reports for :o::,
;. London.
. +,,+,:. Archaeology in Greece. In Archaeological Reports for :::.,
+;o. London.
. +,,,. Archaeology in Greece. In Archaeological Reports for :,:,,
. London.
Friedlnder, P. +,o. Plato.The Dialogues (First Period). New York.
Frost, F. +,+.Politics in Early Athens. In Classical Contributions: Studies in Honour of
Malcolm Francis McGregor, ed. D. M. McCargar and G. Shrimpton, ,. Locust
Valley, New York.
Bibliography +
. +,.The Athenian Military before Cleisthenes. Historia :;,.
. +,o. Toward a History of Peisistratid Athens. In The Craft of the Ancient
Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, ed. J. Eadie and J. Ober, ;;. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
. +,,o.Peisistratos, the Cults, and the Unication of Attica.AncW +:+.
. +,,,.Solon and Salamis, Peisistratus and Nisaia. AncW o:+,.
. +,,,a. The Ominous Birth of Peisistratus. In The Eye Expanded: Life and
the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. F.Titchener and R. Moorton, ,+. Berke-
ley, California.
Gabrielson,V. +,.The Naukraroi and the Athenian Navy. C&M o::++.
Gafforini, C. +,,o.I tirannicidi e i caduti in guerra. In Dulce et decorum est pro pa-
tria mori: La morte in combattimento nellantichita, ed. M. Sordi, ;. Milan.
Garland, R. +,,o. The Greek Way of Life from Conception to Old Age. Ithaca, New York.
. +,,:. Inventing New Gods:The Politics of Athenian Religion. Ithaca, New York.
Gerber, D. +,;o. Euterpe: An Anthology of Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac, and Iambic Poetry.
Amsterdam.
Gernet, L. +,+. The Anthropology of Ancient Greece. Baltimore.
Ghinatti, F. +,;o. I Gruppi politici ateniensi no alle guerre persiane. Rome.
Giorgini, G. +,,. La citt e il Tiranno. Milano.
Giuman, M. +,,,. La dea, la vergine, il sangue: archaeologia di un culto femminile. Milano.
Gillis, D. +,;,. Collaboration with the Persians (Historia Einzelschriften ,,).Wiesbaden.
Gillis, K. M. +,,;.Herodotus Source Citations.In G. Shrimpton, History and Mem-
ory in Ancient Greece, ::,o. Montreal.
Gomme, A.W. +,. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I. Oxford.
. +,o. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, IIIII. Oxford.
. +,o:. More Essays in Greek History. Oxford.
Gottschalk, H. B. +,o. Heraclides of Pontus. Oxford.
Gouchin,V. +,,,. Pisistratus Leadership in A.P. +. and the Establishment of the
Tyranny of o+/oo B.C. CQ ,:+:.
Graham, A. J. +,. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece.
2
Chicago.
Gray,Vivienne. +,,;. Reading the Rise of Pisistratus: Herodotus +.oo. Histos I.
Online article, no formal pagination.
Grith, R. D. +,,.Hippias Missing Tooth (Hdt. o.+o;). AHB :+:+::.
Gygax, M. :oo:. Peisistratos und Kimon: Anmerkung zu einem Vergleich bei
Athenaios. Hermes +o::.
Hamel, D. +,,. Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden.
Hammer, D. +,,.Homer,Tyranny, and Democracy. GRBS ,:+oo.
Hammond, N. G. L. +,o.The Philaids in the Chersonnese.CQ o:++:,.
. +,o,.Strategeia and Hegemonia in Fifth Century Athens.CQ o:++++.
. +,;:. A History of Macedonia, I. Oxford.
. +,o.The Extent of Persian Occupation in Thrace. Chiron +o:o+.
. +,,+.The Early History of Macedonia. AncW :;:o;;+.
. +,,;. The Lakes of the Lower Strymon and Mt. Dionysus. AncW
::+o.
. +,,. Eretrias Colonies in the Area of the Thermaic Gulf. ABSA
+++:,,,.
Hammond, N. G. L., and G.T. Grith. +,;,. A History of Macedonia, II. Oxford.
: ii iii otr:rn.
Hanah, R. +,,,;.Peisistratos, the Peisistratids and the Introduction of Herakles to
Olympus. Electronic Antiquity , September. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/
ElAnt/VN:.
Hansen, M. H. +,,+. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford.
. +,,a. The :ooth Anniversary of Cleisthenes Reforms and the Tradition
of Athenian Democracy. In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts
Presented to David Lewis, ed. R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, :. Oxford.
. +,,b.Kleisthenes and the Icons of Democracy. History :+:+.
Harding, P. E., trans. and comm. +,,. Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford.
Harris-Cline, D. +,,,. Archaic Athens and the Topography of the Kylon Affair.
ABSA ,:o,:o.
Hart, J. +,:. Herodotus and Greek History. London.
Hartog, F. +,;. The Mirror of Herodotus. Trans. J. Lloyd. Berkeley.
Hegyi, D. +,;;.Der Ursprung der Aisymneteia. Acta Classica +:;+o.
Highbarger, E. L. +,:;. The History and Civilization of Ancient Megara. Baltimore.
Hignett, C. +,:. A History of the Athenian Constitution. Oxford.
Hiller, S. +,. The Rediscovery of the Mycenaean Past in the Age of Homer. In
The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.:Tradition and Innovation (Proceed-
ings of the Second International Symposium of the Swedish Institute in Athens, : June
:::), ed. R. Hgg, ,+. Lund.
Hoben, W. +,,;. Zur miglckten Eheverbindung des Peisistratos mit der Tochter
des Megakles (Herod. +,o+,+). Gymnasium +o:+;o.
Hodge, A.Trevor. :oo+.Reections on the Shield of Marathon. ABSA ,o::;oo.
Hogan, J. C. +,,+. A Commentary on the Plays of Sophocles. Carbondale, Illinois.
Holladay, J. +,;;.The Followers of Peisistratus. G&R ::oo.
. +,;.Medism in Athens, oo B.C. G&R ::+;,+.
Holloway, R. R. +,,,.Peisistratus House. NAC ::,o.
Hlscher,T. +,,. Images and Political Identity:The Case of Athens. In Democracy,
Empire and the Arts in Fifth Century Athens, ed. D. Boedeker and K. Raaaub,
+. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Holt, P. +,,.Hippias Oedipal Dream. GRBS ,:::++.
Honigman, R. +,::.Kuvlan. R-E ++.:::ooo+.
Hopper, R. J. +,o+.Plain, Shore, and Hill, in Early Athens. ABSA o:+,:+,.
. +,;,. Trade and Industry in Classical Greece. London.
Hornblower, S. +,;. Thucydides. Baltimore.
. +,,+. A Commentary on Thucydides, I (Books IIII). Oxford.
. +,,o. A Commentary on Thucydides, II (Books IVV..,). Oxford.
. :oo:. Herodotus and His Sources of Information. In Brills Companion to
Herodotus, ed. E. Bakker, I. E. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees, ;o. Leiden.
How,W.W., and J.Well, comm. +,+:. A Commentary on Herodotus, III. Oxford.
Hudson-Williams,T. +,+o. The Elegies of Theognis. London.
Hunter,V. +,;. Thucydides, the Artful Reporter. Toronto.
. +,;.Athens Tyrannis: A New Approach to Thucydides. CJ o,:+:o:o.
. +,:. Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides. Princeton.
Hurwit, J. +,. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, ::oo,:o B.C. Ithaca, New York.
. +,,,. The Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge, England.
Huxley, G. L. +,oo. The Early Ionians. London.
Bibliography
Iakovidis, S. +,o. Excavations of the Necropolis at Perati. Los Angeles.
Immerwahr, H. +,oo. Form and Thought in Herodotus. Cleveland.
Isaac, B. +,o. The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden.
Jacoby, F. +,o. Das Marmor Parium. Berlin.
. +,+.Herodotos. In Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll Supplement :, :o:o. Stuttgart.
. +,,. Atthis.The Local Chronicles of Athens. Oxford.
. +,oa. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, III B. Leiden.
. +,ob. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, III B (Commentary). Leiden.
. +,a. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, III B.I (Supplement). Leiden.
. +,b. Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, III B.II (Notes). Leiden.
Jebb, R. C. +. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments, Part I: Oedipus Tyrannus. Cam-
bridge, England.
. +,+. Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments, Part III: Antigone. Cambridge,
England.
Jeffery, L. H. +,;o. Archaic Greece:The City-States, c. ,oooo B.C. London.
. +,,o. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece.
2
Oxford.
Jeffreys, E., M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott, trans. +,o. The Chronicle of John Malalas. Mel-
bourne.
Jordan, B. +,,:.The Naukraroi of Athens and the Meaning of NEMW.CA o+:oo;,.
Kahil, L. +,;;.LArtmis de Brauron: rites et mystres. AntK :o:o,.
. +,+. La cratrisque dArtmis et le Brauronion de lAcropole. Hesperia
o::o.
. +,.Le sanctuaire de Brauron et la religion grecque. CRAI:;,,+.
Kahrstedt, U. +,. Staatsgebeit und Staatsangehrige in Athen. Stuttgart.
Kallet, L. +,,.Accounting for Culture in Fifth Century Athens.In Democracy, Em-
pire and the Arts in Fifth Century Athens, ed. D. Boedeker and K. Raaaub, .
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. :oo.Demos Tyrannos: Wealth, Power and Economic Patronage. In Popular
Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece, ed. Kathryn Morgan,
++;. Austin,Texas.
Kallet-Marx, L. +,,. Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides History :..,.
Berkeley.
Kamerbeek, J. +,:. The Plays of Sophocles: Part IV, Oedipus Tyrannus. Leiden.
Karavites, P. +,;;.Realities and Appearances, ,oo B.C. Historia :o:+:,;.
Kearns, E. +,,.The Nature of Heroines. In The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient
Greece, ed. S. Blundell and M.Williamson, ,o++o. London.
Keil, B. +,:. Die Solonische Verfassung in Aristoteles Verfassungsgeschichte. Berlin.
Kelly,T. +,;o. A History of Argos to oo B.C. Minneapolis.
Killian, K. +,,o.Mycenaean Colonization: Norm and Variety.In Greek Colonists and
Native Populations, ed. J.-P. Descoudres, o. Oxford.
Kinzl, K. +,o. Miltiades-Forschungen. Wien.
. +,;.Zu Thukydides ber die Peisistratidai. Historia :;:o;.
. +,;oa.Notes on the Exiles of the Alkmaionidai. RhM ++,:+++.
. +,;ob.Mehr zu Thukydides ber die Peisistratidai. Historia ::;o.
. +,;,a.Betrachtungen zur lteren Tyrannis. AJAH ::.
, ed. +,;,b. Die ltere Tyrannis bis zu Perserkriegen. Darmstadt.
. +,,.Regionalism in Classical Athens? (Or:An Anachronism in Herodotos
[+.,.]?). AHB :,.
ii iii otr:rn.
Kirchner, J. +,o+. Prosopographia Attica, III. Berlin.
Kirchner, J., and S. Dow. +,;.Inschriften vom attischen Lande.AM o::+.
Kirk, G. S., comm. +,. The Iliad: A Commentary (Volume :: books :,). Cambridge,
England.
, comm. +,,o. The Iliad:A Commentary (Volume .: books :). Cambridge, En-
gland.
Kluwe, E. +,;:. Bemerkungen zu den Diskussionen ber die drei Parteien in At-
tika zur Zeit der Machtergreifung des Peisistratos. Klio :+o+:.
Knox, B. M. W. +,o. The Date of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. AJP
;;:+;.
Kraay, C. +,o:.The Early Coinage of Athens: A Reply. NC ::+;:.
. +,;o. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. Berkeley.
Kron, U. +,. Comment on D. Peppas-Delmousou, The Theo
ria of Brauron. In
Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the
Swedish Institute at Athens, .. June, ::, ed. R. Hgg, N. Marinatos, and
G. Nordquist, :. Uppsala, Sweden.
Laidlaw,W. A. +,. A History of Delos. Oxford.
Lambert, S. D. +,o. Herodotus, the Cylonian Conspiracy, and the PRUTANEIS
TWN NAUKRAURWN. Historia :+o+:.
. +,,. The Phratries of Attica. Ann Arbor.
. +,,;. The Attic Genos Salaminoi and the Island at Salamis. ZPE ++,:
+oo.
Landwehr, C. +,. Die antiken Gipsabgsse aus Baiae. Berlin.
Lang, M. +,.The Murder of Hipparchus. Historia :,o;.
. +,o;.Kylonian Conspiracy. CP o:::,.
Lapini,W. +,,o. Il POxy. , di Eraclide Pontico e la cronologia dei Cipselidi. Florence.
Larcher, P. H. +:,. Notes on Herodotus, I. London.
Lateiner, D. +,.Herodotean Historiographical Patterning: The Constitutional De-
bate. QS :o::;.
. +,,. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto.
Laurot, B. +,,.Remarques sur la Tragdie de Crsus. Ktema :o:,+o.
Lavelle, B. M. +,. Hipparchos: Studies in Peisistratid Tyranny, .::, B.C. Ph.D. diss.,
University of British Columbia.
. +,.Hipparchos Herms. ECM :,:++:o.
. +,oa. The Nature of Hipparchos Insult to Harmodios. AJP +o;:
++.
. +,ob. The Dating and Patronage of the Archedike-Epigram. Hermes
++::o.
. +,oc.Herodotos on Argive mistho
mos. Amsterdam.
Taylor, M.W. +,+. The Tyrant-Slayers:The Heroic Image in Fifth Century B.C.Athenian
Art and Politics. New York.
Themelis, P. +,;+. Brauron. Guide to the Site and Museum. Athens.
. +,.Diovgnhto~ Eujadhvtou Paionivdh~. Horos ::+o+o.
Thomas, C. G., and C. Conant. +,,,. Citadel to City-State:The Transformation of Greece,
:.oo,oo B.C. Bloomington, Indiana.
Thomas, R. +,,. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge, En-
gland.
Thompson, H., and R. E.Wycherley. +,;:. The Athenian Agora,XIV:The Agora of Athens:
The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center. Princeton, New Jersey.
Thompson,W. E. +,,.The Archonship of Cleisthenes. CJ ::+;:o.
. +,o,.Kleisthenes and Aigeis. Mnemosyne :::+;:.
. +,;+.The Deme in Kleisthenes Reforms. SO :;:;,.
Toepffer, J. +,. Attische Genealogie. Berlin.
: ii iii otr:rn.
. +,.Die Shne des Peisistratos. Hermes :,:oo;.
. +,;. Quaestiones Pisistrateae. In Beitrge zur griechischen Altertumswis-
senschaft, +++:. Berlin.
. +,;a. Astakos. In Beitrge zur griechischen Altertumswissenschaft, :,o.
Berlin.
Tomlinson, R.A. +,;:. Argos and the Argolid: From the End of the Bronze Age to the Ro-
man Occupation. Ithaca, New York.
. +,,,. Archaeology in Greece, +,,,. In Archaeological Reports for
:,:. London.
. +,,,o. Archaeology in Greece, +,,,o. In Archaeological Reports for
::. London.
Traill, J. +,;. The Political Organization of Attica:A Study of the Demes,Trittyes, and Phy-
lai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council. Princeton, New Jersey.
. +,o. Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organiza-
tion of Attica. Toronto.
Travlos, J. +,;o. A Pictorial Dictionary of Athens. London.
Tuchman, B. +,;. A Distant Mirror:The Calamitous :,th Century. New York.
Turner, D.W. +. Notes on Herodotus. Oxford.
Tyrrell,W. B., and F. S. Brown. +,,+. Athenian Myths and Institutions. New York.
Vanderpool, E. +,,.Some Ostraka from the Athenian Agora.Hesperia Supplement
:,++.
. +,o.News Letter from Greece. AJA o;::;,o.
Vandiver, E. +,,+. Heroes in Herodotus:The Interaction of Myth and History. Frankfurt.
van Wees, H. :oo:. Herodotus and the Past. In Brills Companion to Herodotus, ed.
E. Bakker, I. E. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees, :+o. Leiden.
Velacott, P. +,;;. Sophocles and Oedipus. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Viviers, D. +,;. Pisistratus Settlement on the Thermaic Gulf: A Connection with
Eretrian Colonization. JHS +o;:+,,.
Vos, M. +,o. Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Paintings. Groningen.
Walker, H. +,,a.The Early Development of the Theseus Myth. RhM +:+.
. +,,b. Theseus and Athens. Oxford.
Wallace, M. B. +,o:.The Early Coinages of Athens and Euboia. NC ::::.
Wallace, R.W. +,. The Areopagos Council to ,o, B.C. Baltimore.
. +,,. Solonian Democracy. In Democracy .oo? Questions and Challenges,
ed. I. Morris and K. Raaaub, ++o. Dubuque, Iowa.
Wallinga, H.T. :ooo.The Athenian Naukraroi.In Peisistratos and the Tyranny:A Reap-
praisal of the Evidence, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ++o. Amsterdam.
Watereld, R. +,,. Herodotus.The Histories. Oxford.
Waters, K. H. +,. Herodotus the Historian. Norman, Oklahoma.
Wells, J. +,:. Studies in Herodotus. Oxford.
West, M. L., ed. +,;+. Iambi et Elegi Graeci, III. Oxford.
, ed. and comm. +,;. Hesiod.Works and Days. Oxford.
, ed. and comm. +,. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Oxford.
, ed. and trans. +,,. Greek Lyric Poetry. Oxford.
Wheeler, E. +,,+.The General as Hoplite.In Hoplites:The Classical Greek Battle Ex-
perience, ed.V. D. Hanson, +:+;o. London.
White, M. E. +,.Greek Tyranny. Phoenix ,:++.
Bibliography
. +,;.Hippias and the Athenian Archon List. In Polis and Imperium: Studies
in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, ed. J. A. S. Evans, +,.Toronto.
Whitehead, D. +,o. The Demes of Attica, o:/,ca. ,o B.C. Princeton.
. +,,o. Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive under Siege. Oxford.
Whitley, J. +,,+. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. Cambridge, England.
Wickersham, J. +,,+.Myth and Identity in the Archaic Polis. In Myth and Polis, ed.
Dora C. Pozzi and J.Wickersham, +o+. Ithaca, New York.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. +,. Aristoteles und Athen, III. Berlin.
Wilcken, U. +,;.Thettalos. Hermes ::;:.
Williams, G. M. E. +,;. Aristocratic Politics in Athens, c. ,o,,o B.C. Ph.D. diss., Penn-
sylvania State University.
Williams, G.W. +,+.The Curse of the Alkmeonidai, I. Hermathena ;::,.
Winter, N. +,.News Letter from Greece, +,:. AJA :+oo.
Wst, F. +,;.Zu den prutavnie~ tw`n naukravrwn und zu den alten attischen Tyran-
nen. Historia o:+;o,+.
Wycherley, R. E. +,;. The Athenian Agora, III: Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia.
Princeton.
. +,;. The Stones of Athens. Princeton.
Zancan, P. +,. La politica di Pisistrato. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti ,:++o.
Zizza, C. +,,,. Tucidide e il tirannica: il buon uso del materiale epigraco. AFLS
:o:+::.
ii iii otr:rn.
Index
tes/aisymne
) and, 3743,
80, 91, 105, 142, 158, 186, 206,
207, 264, 26668, 282, 285
(see also Kylon/Kylonian affair)
party of, 78, 79, 80, 87, 28082, 291
(see also Megakles [II],party of )
sexual slanders of rivals, 109, 110, 158,
291
Al Mina, 313
Alyattes, 79, 220, 281
Amarousion, 250
Amarynthos, 250
Amazons, 252
Ambrakia/Ambrakiot, 98, 203, 205, 322,
323
Amompharetos, 27273
Amphilytos, 10, 13, 70, 145, 146, 289,
305
Amphipolis, 12629, 131, 132, 133,
29698. See also Ennea Hodoi
Amyntas, king of Macedonia, 121, 294,
325
Anakreon, 238
Anatolia, 184, 229, 251, 314
Anavyssos, 317
Anchimolios, 258, 259, 302
Anchises, 329
Andokides, 147, 148, 149, 244, 304, 305
Andrewes, A., 81, 228
Andron, 328
Androtion, 293, 297, 304, 322, 326, 330
Anthemous, 294, 325
Antigone (Sophokles), 333
apate
, 164
Aphidna, 308
Aphrodite, 103
apoikia/apoikiai, 118, 124, 224
Apollo
Delian, 62, 228
Pythios, temple of, 328
Apollodoros, 238
Archaic period, 22, 23, 28, 57, 58, 109,
122, 127, 154, 177, 181, 182, 184,
185, 193, 200, 214, 225, 233, 251,
253, 266, 300, 313, 315, 331
Archaiologia, 12
Archedike, 243, 325
Archelaos, 164
Archidamian War, 264
Archilochos, 127, 313
Archinos, 98, 203, 205, 322
archon list, sixth-century B.C.E. Athenian,
11, 88, 91, 152, 21113, 239, 284,
325, 326
Areopagos, Council of the, 4, 239
Ares, 103
Argilos, 296
Argos/Argives, 97, 98, 110, 13640, 198,
203, 2049, 218, 257, 288, 3013,
322, 323, 324
Aristagoras, 125, 127, 129, 13133, 138,
297, 300, 302, 331
Aristaichmos, 261, 325
Aristeas, 242
aristeia, 103
Aristeides, 239
Aristion, 72, 277, 287, 311, 326
Aristogeiton, 108, 196, 197, 284, 320
Aristophanes, 135
Aristotle, 34, 35, 50, 72, 210, 259, 260,
270, 274, 326, 331
Arkhanes, 312
Arretine, 178
Artaphernes, 138, 302
Artemis
Amarysia, 250
Brauronia (Athens)
Peisistratids and, 22, 171, 250, 308,
309
Brauronia (Brauron)
cult of, 21, 22, 28, 173, 17577, 183,
187, 250, 251, 308, 309
Peisistratids and, 22, 173, 250
spring at temenos, 310
temple/temenos of, 2022, 171, 173,
174, 17681, 248, 249, 309, 311
o i xirx
Delia, 228
Kolainis, 22, 171, 250, 308
Mounichia, 22, 171, 308
Tauropoulos, 250
Artemisia, 242
Asia, 227
Astakos, 258
Asteria, 165
Atalante, 63
Athena, 10, 37, 40, 63, 84, 9294, 98106,
161, 228, 262, 263, 286, 289, 290,
320
Palle
naio
n Politeia (Ath.Pol.)/author of
(AP), 3, 6, 12, 13, 40, 42, 46, 60,
63, 72, 73, 97, 117, 130, 133, 134,
136, 137, 139, 141, 160, 203, 204,
21113, 216, 217, 222, 224, 226,
227, 243, 245, 255, 261, 265, 266,
270, 27679, 283, 286, 288, 293,
297, 301, 303, 305, 318, 320, 322,
323, 326, 330, 331
and PeisistratosThracian sojourn, 117
Athenians/Athenian
amnesty of 413 B.C.E., 70
aristocrats/aristocracy, 16, 26, 27, 29,
36, 39, 74, 78, 79, 106, 187, 189,
254, 264, 274, 27680, 283, 288,
323 (see also gno
rimoi)
astoi/asty, 2, 18, 27, 59, 67, 68, 7477,
81, 82, 219, 278, 279, 282, 283,
303, 328
citizenship law, 321
culture of, during Peisistratid rule, 12,
237, 238, 239, 315
democracy/de
mos, 16367
popularity engendering political
success, 16366
democratic ideology, 6, 8, 64, 276, 304
democratic tyranny, 1516, 92 (see
also Athenians/Athenian, democ-
racy/de
mokratia)
de
mos, as foolish)
inconstancy, 66, 67, 76, 77, 79, 81
intermittently intense political
activity, 76
necessity of consent to be governed
of /leadership of, 14, 15, 16, 26,
66, 67, 7577, 87, 90, 99, 102, 112,
118, 154, 157, 161, 162, 189, 215,
230 (see also prostasia/prostate
s
tou de
mou)
swayed by oratory, 15, 26, 66, 7477,
85, 90, 157, 158
kle
ne
, 304, 305
strate
seion)
Temple of Olympian Zeus (see
Olympeion)
Athmonia, 250
atimia/atimos, 148
Atthis/Atthides, 12, 13, 40, 97, 135, 172,
176, 211, 213, 226, 308, 322, 330
Atthidographers, 60, 64, 117, 172, 175,
2035, 271, 306
Attic comedy, 308
Attika, 4, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 31, 32, 63, 72,
77, 110, 111, 117, 118, 134, 135,
137, 159, 17173, 175, 18085,
18789, 200, 202, 203, 209, 211,
219, 250, 251, 25456, 260, 262,
271, 273, 282, 288, 292, 293, 297,
301, 306, 312, 314, 322, 328, 331.
See also mesogaia
Aulis, 250
Autolykos, 319
Axios River, 121, 122
Ayia Paraskevi, 331
Ayios Yioryios, 309
Bacchos/Bacchic, 222
Bakla Burnu (Kardia), 295
barbaroi, 140
basileus/basileis, 18, 24, 92
bear dancing, 21, 250
Beck, M., 177
Black Prince (Edward of Woodstock), 252
Blok, J., 101
Boiotia/Boiotians, 250, 251
invasion of Attika under Xanthos, 23
Bolayir (polis Agoraios), 124, 133, 295
Bosporos, 120
Boudoron, 54
Brasidas, 129
Brauron, 17, 2022, 27, 28, 63, 17178,
18082, 184, 187, 24650,
30712, 314, 328
Brauron Bay, 171
Bronze Age, 2022, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34,
60, 61, 63, 165, 171, 175, 177, 180,
182, 184, 24648, 25055, 309,
313, 314
Building F, 93, 94, 286, 287. See also
Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates,
abode of, as tyrant in Athens
Byzantion/Byzantine, 33, 178, 258, 297
Cape Geraistos, 184
Cape Poseidonion, 119
Capture of Miletos (Phrynichos), 44, 268
Chaironeia, 323
Chalastra, 223
Chalkidike
mos
(Solonian/Peisistratan), avarice of
in Oedipous Tyrannos, 23135
Churchill, Sir Winston, 241
impe Kale (Paktye), 295
Classical period, 21, 58, 122, 127, 171,
174, 17679, 200, 214, 222, 310,
329
Clouds (Nubes) (Aristophanes), 135
condottiere, 12123, 187
Connor,W. R., 100
Corinth/Corinthian, 33, 60, 62, 203, 253,
257, 265, 297, 317
Crecy, 252
Creon/Kreon, 231, 232, 233, 235, 264,
332
i xirx
Crete/Cretan, 184, 313
Cromwell, Oliver, 241
Cyclades, 184, 229, 251
Daimachos, 268
Damasias, 186, 213, 277, 280, 327
Daphni, 328
Dareios, 126, 127, 130, 132, 298
Dark Age, 21, 28, 33, 171, 175, 177, 179,
182, 246, 251, 311, 313
Datis, 314, 331
Daton, 132, 296, 300
Dawe, R. D., 233
Dekeleia, 308
Delian League, 128, 139, 164, 227, 230,
313
de Libero, L., 101
Delos, 62, 138, 139, 184, 22730, 273,
299, 314, 331, 332
Delphi, 37
de
magogos, 279
Demetrios of Phaleron, 277, 320
Demosthenes, 266, 267
diakria/diakrioi, 63, 96, 140, 144, 174, 185,
186, 187, 192, 219, 245, 246, 251,
253, 254, 273, 282, 283, 288, 308,
309, 312, 316, 317, 328, 329. See
also hyperakria/hyperakrioi
diallakte
s, 319
Diamant, S., 177
diapsephismos, 72
Diasia, 37, 38
diaulos, 36
Didymos, 224, 225
Dikaia, 119, 22427, 294, 330, 331
Dikaiopolitai, 331
Diodoros Sikulos, 248, 313
Diogenes Laertios, 61, 273, 274, 287,
31719
Diognetos, son of Euadnetos, 248, 252,
311
Diomedes, 103, 104, 105, 290
Dionysios, 34, 197, 259, 320
Dionysos/dionysiac, 222, 308
Dodekapoleis (Attic), 172, 251, 308, 309
dolichos, 257
Dolonkoi, 312
Dorians, 24, 31, 39, 40, 47, 62, 63, 252,
254, 259, 263, 290
doryphoroi, 68, 95, 96, 241, 282, 283, 287.
See also korune
phoroi; Peisistratos,
son of Hippokrates, bodyguard of
Douris, 306
Drabeskos, 125, 127, 132, 296, 300
Drakon, 261, 319, 325
Dropides/Dropidai, 246, 319
Dysoron, Mount, 131
Edonoi, 128, 29698
Edson, C. E., 223, 224, 226, 227
Eion, 124, 127, 128, 13234, 164, 165,
296306
Elaious, 57, 227
Eleusis/Eleusinian, 14, 15, 3135, 39,
43, 4955, 59, 155, 173, 186, 219,
255, 256, 258, 260, 263, 27072,
308, 328, 329. See also Mysteries,
Eleusinian
Elpinike, 110
embolon, 265
emporion, 128, 133
enageis, 78, 267, 323. See also Alkme-
onids/Alkmeonidai, Kylonian
slaughter (sphage
) and
England, 252
Ennea Hodoi, 12729, 131, 132, 29698.
See also Amphipolis
Epakria, 308
ephe
boi, 321
Ephialtes, 307
Ephoros, 257
Epidauros, 314
Epikles, 165
epikouroi, 124, 298, 299
Epimenes, 253
Erasinos River, 173, 174, 176, 178, 180,
181, 310
Erectheos, 255
Eretria/Eretrian, 66, 11623, 12527,
131, 13341, 143, 152, 156, 159,
160, 182, 183, 187, 189, 192, 198,
199, 202, 224, 225, 250, 29194,
300303, 313, 314
Eris, 103
Index ,
Eteoboutad, 78
Euboia/Euboian, 22, 63, 66, 153, 18184,
189, 192, 199, 219, 24951, 257,
273, 274, 293, 313, 314, 323, 328,
331
Euboic Gulf, 182
Eumolpos, 252, 255
Euripides, 21, 320
Eurysakes, 20, 32, 60, 61, 256, 307
Eusebios, 257, 313
Euxine Sea, 33, 60, 227
Execestides, 195, 246
Four Hundred, 325
Frazer, J. G., 176
Frontinus, 5355, 258, 271
Galepsos, 298
Geometric period, 22, 23, 182
Gephyraioi, 22, 23, 251
geras, 74
ge
ras/ge
n, 213
gne
sios/gne
, 72
Greater Panathenaia, 238
Hagnon, 127, 129, 132, 296, 297
Halae Araphenides, 250
Halikarnassos, 9, 242
Halys River, 10
Harmodios, 6, 7, 108, 196, 197, 240, 284,
320
Harpagos, 229
Harpaktides, 4, 210, 216, 217, 324, 325
Hebros River, 223
Hegesias, 216
Hegesistratos, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207,
209, 32224
Hegestratos, 196
Hekataios, 293
Hellanikos, 73, 271, 312, 326
Hellenistic period, 176, 178, 193
Hellespont, 227
Helot revolt, 164
Henry (VII) Tudor, king of England,
241
Herakleides, 46, 55, 19398, 31719
Herakles, 105, 241, 253, 289, 290
Hereas, 61, 329
Hermes, 319
herms/hermai, 178, 306, 311. See also
Hipparchos, son of Peisistratos,
herms
Herodotos, 2, 3, 812, 1416, 18, 19,
2431, 4650, 62, 6673, 7578,
81, 82, 8490, 9193, 95102,
10514, 116, 126, 130, 131,
13453, 15760, 165, 183, 190,
19395, 197, 199, 200, 204,
2068, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217,
21921, 227, 228, 230, 23944,
252, 254, 255, 261, 262, 268, 270,
274, 276, 281, 282, 28893,
29799, 3015, 309, 316, 317,
320, 328, 329, 333
and the Alkmeonidai, 10, 11, 8789,
100, 10513, 207, 220, 221,
24247, 262, 28285, 289, 291,
292
and Athens, 9
Debate on Government, 5, 240
parties of Attika and, 6687 (see also
parties of Attika)
and Peisistratos rst tyranny, 6698
and Peisistratos Palle
ne
campaign, 131,
134, 13650, 160, 228
and Peisistratos second tyranny,
98115
and PeisistratosThracian sojourn,
11617, 126, 130, 134, 150
on rooting of tyranny and third
tyranny, 114, 149, 150, 159, 234,
299 (see also Herodotos, and Pei-
sistratos Palle
ne
campaign)
Sophokles and, 231, 234, 235, 242
Hesiod, 251
Hesychios, 328
hierosylia, 261, 287
oo i xirx
Hill 133, 296, 298
Hipparchos ([Plato]), 175, 307
Hipparchos, son of Charmos, 3, 4, 239
Hipparchos, son of Peisistratos, vii, 6, 7,
12, 133, 182, 198, 201, 203, 240,
243, 273, 289, 295, 306, 311, 320,
322, 324, 325
Akademy and, 165, 325
herms, 306, 311, 325
hippeis, 134, 136, 137, 140, 182, 187, 192,
201, 301
Hippias, 1, 3, 11, 12, 62, 88, 93, 116, 117,
121, 144, 152, 157, 159, 174, 182,
198201, 203, 204, 211, 214, 217,
235, 240, 243, 244, 286, 287,
29295, 302, 303, 309, 316, 320,
321, 324, 325, 334
Hippokleides, 325
Hippokrates, brother of Peisistratos?, 193
Hippokrates, father of Peisistratos the
tyrant, 1, 10, 13, 18, 29, 67, 68, 70,
146, 152, 182, 191, 192, 246, 247,
274, 276, 316, 317
Hippokrates, son of Megakles (II),
152, 153, 305, 307. See also
Alkmeonids/Alkmeonidai
Hippokrates, son of Peisistratos?, 321
hippotrophos, 301
Histiaios, 126, 127, 129, 13133, 300
Hollows of Euboia, 182
Homer, 92, 103, 104, 182, 184, 193, 238,
273, 313
horse culture, 181, 182, 192, 31214,
316
horse sacrices, 181, 31214
Hurwit, J., 93
Hymettos, Mount, 13, 312
Hymn to Demeter, 184, 256
hyperakria/hyperakrioi, 18, 27, 48, 67, 68,
71, 8184, 188, 245, 251, 283,
308, 312. See also diakria/diakrioi
hypokorismos, 287
Iliad (Homer), 61, 103, 104, 257, 290, 300
Iokaste, 316
Iolkos, 294, 325
Ion, 110, 306
Ionia/Ionians, 33, 44, 62, 132, 138, 139,
22830, 244, 246, 248, 25153,
257
Iophon, 201, 203, 207, 322, 324
Iphigeneia, 21, 250
Iphikrates, 300
Isagoras, 26, 93, 94, 105, 110, 142, 162,
254, 262, 263, 280, 287, 291, 324
Isodike, 165
Isthmus of Corinth, 31, 249, 328
Italy, 182
Jacoby, F., 72, 172, 219
Jebb, R., 233
Jeffery, L. H., 194
John, king of England, 241
Justin, 5355, 258, 270
Kalamaria, 329
Kallias (I), son of Phainippos, 284, 315
Kallias (II), son of Hipponikos, 185
Kallimachos, 58
Kallinos, 42, 269, 315
Kapsara, 178
Karabournaki, 328
Kardia (Bakla Burnu), 124, 295
Karia/Karians, 9, 62
Karystos, 314
Kassandros, 223
Kekrops/Kekropia, 172, 308
Kephisia, 308
Kephissian Plain, 29, 155, 186, 254, 267,
328
Kerkenitis, Lake, 129
Khalkedon, 33, 258
Khoriatis, Mount, 223, 329
Kimon (I) koalemos, 4, 163, 181, 275, 295,
314. See also Philaidai/Philaids
Kimon (III), son of Miltiades (IV), 15, 110,
128, 164, 165, 167, 201, 306, 307,
321. See also Philaidai/Philaids
Kineas, 302
Kipi, 177, 179, 310
Kissos, 222, 223, 227
Kleidemos, 133, 271, 322, 326
Kleisthenes, son of Megakles (II), viii, 3, 4,
11, 80, 88, 152, 172, 239, 265, 277,
Index o+
Kleisthenes (continued)
281, 305, 321. See also
Alkmeonids/Alkmeonidai
deme arrangement of, 22, 33, 172, 175,
176, 219, 220, 309, 327, 328
Philadai and, 17277
reforms of, viii, 2, 3, 33, 172, 219, 220,
238, 270
and Salamis, 33
Kleisthenes, tyrant of Sikyon, 3, 79, 202,
254, 264, 287, 323
Kleomenes (I), king of Sparta, 41, 62, 63,
93, 110, 239, 262, 263, 265, 272,
273, 286
kle
te
s, 321
kothurnoi, 4
Koukounaries, 311
Kratinos, 274
Kritias, 319
Kroisos, 10, 79, 86, 195, 197, 217, 220,
229, 276, 281, 317, 320
Krommyon, 257
Kylon/Kylonian affair, 2326, 3545, 64,
65, 7579, 81, 85, 89, 9194, 98,
105, 118, 142, 151, 155, 162, 186,
202, 252, 254, 25968, 278, 280,
282, 286, 287, 323
date of, 261
Kyme, 251
Kyne
troxenoi, 321
Mikro Karabournou, 329
Miletos/Milesian, 24, 44, 12527, 131,
132, 253, 257, 293, 300
Miltiades (III), half-brother of Kimon
koalemos, 123, 181, 312, 317. See
also Philaidai/Philaids
Miltiades (IV), son of Kimon koalemos, 4,
15, 57, 124, 133, 134, 163, 164,
167, 201, 229, 239, 272, 295. See
also Philaidai/Philaids
Mimnermos, 326
Minos, 184, 309
mistho
ne
te
s/nomothe
sia, 319
nothos/nothoi, 198, 201, 322, 324
Nubes (Clouds) (Aristophanes), 135
Odysseus, 103, 104, 105
Odyssey (Homer), 104, 251
Oedipous, 23135, 252, 264, 332, 333
Oedipous Tyrannos (Sophokles), 23135,
252, 264, 332, 333
oikist/oikiste
), 272
Paionia/Paionian, 122, 127, 130, 296
Paktye (impe Kale), 295
Palaio Vraona, 176
Pallas, 219, 328
Palle
ne
ne
campaign of
battle of, 14350, 216
treachery at, 14850
Palle
ne
(Chalkidike
s, 290
paralia/paraloi, 67, 219, 328, 329
Parnes, 328
Paros/Parian, 4, 128, 163, 164, 167,
29597, 311
parties of Attika, 14, 18, 6787, 21921,
276, 277, 280, 281, 32729
the beyond-the-hills (Herodotean),
18, 67, 78, 8184, 219 (see also
diakria/diakrioi; hyperakria/
hyperakrioi)
the plain (Herodotean), 67, 78, 219
(see also pedion)
the shore (Herodotean), 67, 7881,
88, 113, 219 (see also paralia/
paraloi)
Pausanias, 172, 259, 265, 273
Pax (Peace) (Aristophanes), 314
pedion, 67, 328, 329
Peiraios, 22, 129, 171, 308
Peisistratids/Peisistratidai
Athens culture under, 237, 238
background of, 187, 188, 193, 194
o i xirx
bodyguards of, 94 (see also Peisistratos,
son of Hippokrates, bodyguard
of )
cult of Artemis Brauronia and, 22, 173,
187, 250 (see also Artemis,
Brauronia)
damnatio memoriae of, 6, 93, 174, 286,
325 (see also ste
le
adikias)
descent from Neleids of, 1819, 2330,
24447, 249, 252, 254
expulsion from Athens of, 286
fth-century Athenian attitudes to-
ward, as tyrants, 30, 55, 56, 69, 70,
71, 82, 8487, 90, 91, 95, 148, 149,
198, 200, 213, 233, 237, 240, 241,
244, 283, 326
fth-century ofcial/general execration
of, 6, 1012, 28, 50, 70, 82, 86, 95,
149, 155, 174, 198, 200, 244, 274,
275, 288
Homer, and, 61, 238
implication of Persians with, 239
kin of, 3
monuments of, 325
myth and, 18, 19, 2329, 60, 63, 103,
106, 156, 157, 194, 252, 253, 256,
273, 274, 294 (see also Neleids/
Neleidai; Peisistratos, son of
Hippokrates, Neleid origins of,
claim to)
Philaids and, 295, 312
poets and, 2, 165, 238, 33234
prosopography of, 191209, 244, 316
taxation of Athenians by, 96, 97, 185,
288
Peisistratos, archon for 669/68 B.C.E.,
193, 194, 251, 317
Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates
abode of, as tyrant in Athens, 9294,
286, 287 (see also Building F)
akme
, 214
alienness/outsider status of, 1719,
23, 81, 89, 309, 315, 316, 323
ambition and greed, 17, 29, 30, 66, 153,
154, 156, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192,
197, 315
Athena and, 1025, 161
background of, questions pertaining to,
18790
birth date of, 46, 196, 200, 212, 213,
215, 217, 251, 276, 318
bodyguard of, 14, 47, 68, 72, 73, 8183,
85, 95, 96, 151, 157, 159, 161,
241, 280, 282, 283, 287, 300 (see
also doryphoroi; korune
phoroi;
Peisistratids/Peisistratidai, body-
guards of )
chronology of life events of, 21018
cleverness/deceptiveness/intelligence/
trickery of, 12, 13, 5356, 67,
68, 77, 82, 8486, 90, 1036,
162, 235, 255, 271, 272, 274,
319, 324
coins of last tyranny of (see Wappen-
mnzen)
colonialism and, 64, 11733, 136, 184,
227, 29295, 322 (see also under
Peisistratos: Eion and; Ennea
Hodoi/Amphipolis and;
Rhaike
se)
as condottiere?, 12123, 187
conduct of, as tyrant/character of
rule, 9097, 108, 114, 151, 152,
159, 161, 162, 167, 185, 190,
23840
death circumstances of, 212, 213
death date of, 21015, 218, 32426
Delos and, 138, 139, 22830
de
mos [Solonian/Peisistratan])
divinely designated for tyranny, 67,
68, 70, 82, 84, 86, 94, 145, 146,
147, 160, 191, 192, 234 (see
also Hippokrates, father of
Peisistratos the tyrant)
Eion and, 127, 128
election of, as tyrant, 15, 67, 68, 71,
85, 86, 106, 112, 157
Ennea Hodoi/Amphipolis and, 12629
Eretrians and, 66, 11622, 125, 13440,
143, 156, 159, 160, 183, 184, 199,
224, 225
Index o
Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates (continued)
great deeds (megala erga) of, during
Megarian war, 14, 25, 30,
38, 4752, 58, 67, 68, 90,
103, 150, 155, 157, 189, 211, 255
home-deme of (see Philadai)
image of, 15, 188
Lygdamis and (see Lygdamis [Naxos])
Megakles (II) and, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16,
47, 48, 80, 83, 8692, 9799,
1013, 10515, 152, 158, 159,
189, 194, 2049, 21618, 275,
277, 286, 28891
mines of Mount Pangaion and,
12931, 156
money and, 15, 16, 65, 118, 119,
12431, 133, 136, 137, 142, 143,
153, 15659, 161, 162, 167, 185,
18789 (see also Athenians/
Athenian, de
mos [Solonian/
Peisistratan], avarice of; chre
mata
and its political importance at
Athens)
Neleid origins of, claims to, 1829, 60,
61, 103, 156, 157, 175, 183, 187,
192, 194, 24447, 254, 289
(see also Neleids/Neleidai;
Peisistratids/Peisistratidai, myth
and)
Nisaia and, 14, 15, 17, 26, 2830,
4660, 6467, 89, 97, 114, 155,
156, 160, 164, 183, 186, 189, 190,
201, 202, 21315, 217, 244, 252,
254, 268, 270, 320 (see also Nisaia)
offspring of (see Hegesistratos; Hip-
parchos, son of Peisistratos; Hip-
pias; Hippokrates, son of Peisis-
tratos?; Iophon;Thessalos)
as oikiste
ne
ne
[Attika]; Palle
ne
[Attika], battle of )
catalogue of allies, 13442, 149,
244, 245
chre
los)
rooting of the tyranny of, 10, 16,
114, 117, 154, 156, 159, 234,
299
rule of, 240, 319
Sieben Wiesen (Seven Sages) and, 197,
319
Solon and, 4546, 6064, 167, 186,
18890, 19298, 244, 268, 270,
273, 274, 276, 31820
sophia (political savvy) and, 167, 189,
197
sources on the history of tyrannies of,
913 (see also Aineias Taktikos;
Athenaio
n Politeia [Ath.Pol.]/
author of [AP]; Herodotos;
Plutarch;Thucydides)
strate
gos/strate
s tou de
n naukraro
n, 262
Pylos/Pylians, 1821, 23, 24, 2630, 193,
194, 244, 24649, 251, 256, 313,
316
Pythian Games, 327
Pythion, 328
Rana, 247
Raubitschek, A., 147
Rhaike
, 37
Sphakteria, 271
Sphettos, 308
Sphinx (Theban), 232
stadion, 257
Stagira, 331
stasio
le
gia/strate
seion, 13
Theseus, 23, 26, 31, 32, 165, 252, 255,
306, 307
Thesmophoria, 53
Thespis, 238
Thessalonike