Boardman J., Hammond N.G. L. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 3: The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries BC
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
SOLON TO PISISTRATUS 395
(1968)
Chr.
29). Large numbers of ostraka survive naming Megacles son
of Hippocrates from Alopece, ostracized
in
486,
two
name Megacles
son of Callisthenes, three Megacles of
Acharnae:
13
it
is likely that at least
two
men
named Megacles were considered
for
ostracism,
14
but the
suggestion is attractive that one voter was merely mistaken and thought
that
the son
of
Hippocrates was registered
not
in
Alopece
but
where
his land lay,
in
Anaphlystus.
15
It
is
less easy
to
see the Parali as
a
party held together
by a
common
economic interest, though attempts have been made
16
to
take them
as
traders and fishermen.
If
the Parali took their name from Thucydides'
Paralus land,
we
should
do
better
to
consider what kind
of
lead they
would get from the principal landowners of the district. Solon has often
been associated with the Parali and with the Alcmeonidae,
17
and
when
Ath.
Pol. says that this party favoured
a
'middle' constitution
in
opposition
to the
oligarchic Plain this
can be
understood
in the
sense
that they wanted to maintain Solon's achievement. But if
we
knew more
detail
we
should doubtless find that
the
Athenians
of
the
560s, like
the contemporaries
of
Aristophanes, were more often concerned with
current and particular problems than with the form
of
the constitution.
The Hill gives more trouble. Herodotus'
imepa.Kpi.oi.
{hyperakrioi)
have been understood
as 'the men
from beyond
the
hills',
18
and the
notion that Pisistratus led the disgruntled men
of
the periphery against
two parties centred
on
the
city
has its
attractions.
But
though most
hyper-
compounds carry the sense 'beyond', there are enough instances
of 'above'
or 'on top
of;
and in the
other occurrence
of
the word
in
Herodotus
(vi. 20)
TO
virepaKpia
{ta
hyperakria)
must mean
the
hill-
country behind Miletus,
not
the country beyond
the
hills.
19
The same
is true
for
the
echo
in
Dionysius
{Ant.
Rom. 1. 13.3),
and
no
other
instance
survives.
While vnepaKpios
(hyperakrios) is
a descriptive ad jective,
the alternative Aiaxpioi
{Diakriot)
appears as
a
proper name {Ath. Pol.;
Plut. Sol. 13.2,
29.1;
the variant 'EnaKpioi {Epakrioi)
in
Mor. 763D can
be disregarded).
In
the
division between
the
sons
of
Pandion this
was
the share
of
Lycus, described
by
Sophocles
(fr. 24
Pearson
=
872
N
2
)
as
TOV
avTivXevpov
Krprov
Evfioias; lexicographers probably define
Diacria
as
extending from Parnes
to
Brauron;
20
Pisistratus himself
came from Brauron (Plato,
Hipparch.
228b; Plut. Sol. 10.3). Parnes and
Brauron would delimit an area of north-east Attica much of which could
be called 'hill country', but this apparently coherent picture is disrupted
13
R.
Thomsen, The
Origin
of
Ostracism
(Gyldendal, 1972)
94, 104.
14
F 5.
599-
l6
F i,
66
n.
25, 74-
18
A 44,
614-15;
F
73,
60-1.
" F
36, 1 17,
11
65; A 44, 615;
A
37,
95.
18
J.
A.
R.
Munro
ap.
F
9, no
with
n. 9;
A 66,
167
n. 2.
19
J.
M.
Cook,
BSA
56
(1961)
90-2.
20
Hesych.
s.v.
Juncpeij; Bekkcr,
Anecd.
1.242;
for the
texts
see
F
78,
20; F
85,
24
n.
20.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
396 44-
THE
TYRANNY OF PISISTRATUS
by the discovery that Aiaxpis was the name of the inland trittys of the
tribe Leontis in Cleisthenes' system,
21
which according to likely but not
quite certain identifications consisted of a half-circle of small demes
behind Acharnae towards Parnes, plus Hecale, detached and at some
distance to the east.
22
This takes us into an area which can no longer
be described as 'opposite Euboea'. Perhaps the Diacria of Lycus had
an unexpected extension to the west, still among the foothills of Parnes;
or more than one area of Attica had
a
name of
this
derivation, as Diacrii
and Diacres in Euboea appear to be distinct though not far apart.
23
Either way, this reinforces the natural impression that Diacrii etc.,
though we meet them only as proper names, are strongly descriptive.
There does not seem to be much difference in basic meaning between
hyperakrioi
and Diacrii.
It is not easy to see any interest peculiar to the Diacrii which could
have provided a basis for Pisistratus' rise to power. They were no doubt
poorer than the farmers of the plain, but hardly more numerous or
significantly tougher; and Diacria is inconveniently far from the city
where the decisions were made. Ath.
Pol.
13.5 adds two further groups
to the party. Poverty brought in those who had been 'deprived of their
debts',
which would appear
to
mean men impoverished
by the
Seisachtheia (cf. 13.3): some modern critics, unable to believe in such
a group, have taken them as men who had been liberated from their
debts by Solon but not rescued from their poverty,
24
but
a^r/pr/fievoi
means 'deprived' not 'relieved' and 13.3 points the other way. Con-
ceivably some nobles, more dependent than others on dues paid by
hektemoroi
(above, p. 382), had suffered by the Seisachtheia enough to
form a distinguishable group of malcontents, but it cannot have been
numerous. Secondly, those not of pure descent joined because of their
fear. Ath. Pol. throws in the evidence of the purge of the citizen body
conducted after the fall of the tyranny, when many were found to be
exercising citizen rights to which they were not entitled, but
as
has often
been pointed out
25
the tyranny itself provided a more likely opportunity
for spurious citizens to creep in; it has also been surmised
26
that the
nucleus of this group was formed by foreigners admitted under Solon's
citizenship law (Plut.
Sol.
24.4), but it has not been explained why these
men, whose original admission was legal, should have been in special
danger in the 560s. In any case these are additional groups
(npoaeKe-
KooiJ.r)VTo)
which can offer no clue to the nature of the main body of
Pisistratus' supporters. Lastly there is Plutarch's assertion that the party
included the
d-qriKOs
o\^os, the class most hostile to the rich. This has
F 89, esp. 94-6.
22
J. S. Traill, Hesp. suppl. 14 (1975) 45—7.
F 23,
480-1.
24
F 36, 1 31; A 13,
n
309; F 82, 195 with n. 73.
E.g. A 13, 11 310 n.
2. 28
E.g. E. M. Walker in CAH iv
1
14).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
SOLON TO PISISTRATUS 397
served
as
basis
for a
theory
2
' that Pisistratus' main support came from
the poor within
the
city,
but
it is
unlikely that Plutarch
had
specific
evidence unknown to other
writers;
rather, he reflects the general theory
of tyranny based on the hostility of the poor against the rich (Arist. Pol.
130532iff,
i3iobi3fF, cf. Ath.
Pol.
13.4,14.1
S^/XOTIKCOTOTO?).
Pisistratus,
after
two
failures, attained
the
tyranny with mercenaries
and
foreign
help,
and
this discourages
any
theory that
he
was swept
to
power
by
a major social upheaval.
Our sources agree that his rise
to
power was helped by the glory
he
had won
in
the war against Megara, and his popularity will have been
all
the
more
if
his
capture
of
Nisaea
was
followed
by
the
Spartan
arbitration which finally assigned Salamis
to
Athens (above,
p. 373).
This border war was presumably fought
by
the regular militia,
and so
its commander should be polemarch, as is generally supposed, but there
is no evidence that Pisistratus was later supported by this militia
or
by
a' hoplite class'. The hoplite army of Athens had existed, and had fought
together against Megara,
for
long enough
to
have acquired some sense
of cohesion,
28
but
if
the hoplites
as
such ever had
a
grievance against
aristocrats as such, for which there is no Athenian evidence, that would
be in the seventh century, and so far as we can see this class was content
with what Solon had done
for
the
%eugitai.
Further, farmers substantial
enough to afford hoplite armour must have been more numerous in the
plain than among
the
hills.
There remains
the
view that
the
parties took their names from
the
districts
in
which
the
leaders
had
their estates, which
is
close
to
what
Ath.
Pol. 13.5 says though
not
quite
the
same. The local following
is
then the nucleus
of
the party,
29
round which were gathered supporters
from
the
city
and
elsewhere: Herodotus speaks explicitly (1. 62.1)
of
Pisistratus' supporters from
the
city.
If
we cannot discover
a
special
interest
to
unite
a
massive party
of
Diacrii,
we
must fall back
on
Herodotus' statement (1. 59.3) that Pisistratus created
a
third party
deliberately in order to make himself tyrant; the suggestion that the new
party was
at the
start
a
splinter from the Coast
30
is
given some colour
by Isocrates' statement (xvi.
25)
that
the
Alcmeonidae were
kin to
Pisistratus
and on
close terms with
him
before
his
usurpation,
and
it
may be significant that the name Hippocrates is common to Pisistratus'
father and
to
several members of the Alcmeonid family. The tyrannical
ambition is credible enough in a man of his time and his standing. When
Herodotus and others praise the quality
of
his rule, we may
if
we wish
"
F
78, 16-17, 22-3.
2
» Cf.
H
40, 151 and see
further 153-4.
29
F85,2
3
.
30
F
9, 110, but as he
candidly admits (112
n. 7) the
programme
he
attributes
to the
party
is
'a reconstruction'.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
398 44- THE TYRANNY OF PISISTRATUS
suppose that
he was
conscious
of
his capacity
to
govern
and had
beneficent policies already thought out, more particularly that he aimed
to suppress the ruinous competition
for
power among the aristocratic
factions; but at this stage he can only be seen as one of the competitors.
II.
VICISSITUDES OF PISISTRATUS
His first overt step was
to
drive into the agora, claiming that he had
been wounded
by his
rivals. Herodotus and
Ath.
Pol. both say
the
wounds were self-inflicted, which we cannot verify, and imply that his
military popularity predisposed the people to grant him
a
bodyguard;
Ath.
Pol. (14.1) purports to know the name of Aristion who proposed
the decree. The guard was
of
club-bearers, which sounds more like
protection against street rioting than an instrument
of
civil war,
but
with their help he seized the Acropolis. Herodotus says that he did not
disturb
Ti[ia.s
TCLS
kovaas (the existing offices) but governed well, and
Ath.
Pol. more briefly echoes this, but before his rule was well rooted
the other two parties combined
to
drive him out. Megacles however
found that he was losing the subsequent struggle with Lycurgus, so he
made a pact with Pisistratus, to be sealed by the latter's marriage with
Megacles' daughter. The charade by which
a
tall girl was dressed
up
as Athena, and called on the Athenians
to
receive Pisistratus back,
is
described by Herodotus though
he
found
it
hard
to
swallow that the
clever Athenians could have been so simple-minded: modern scepticism
has found various remedies,
31
but
echoes
of
the charade can almost
certainly be detected in Athenian art of the period.
32
The pact collapsed
when
it
became clear that Pisistratus did not intend
to
have children
by
a
daughter
of
the Alcmeonidae. This time Herodotus says that
Pisistratus left the country altogether, which seems to imply that in his
first 'exile' he withdrew only from Athens, not from Attica.
From Eretria he and his sons set about collecting contributions from
'the cities which were under
a
previous obligation to them'. Much as
we should like to know what lies behind this, Herodotus
(1.
61.3) does
not elucidate the phrase, nor explain why Thebes gave more money than
any other city, nor why there was
an
interval
of
ten years before
the
return was attempted. Ath. Pol. 15.2 does something to fill this last gap.
First Pisistratus settled a place named Rhaecelus on the Thermaic Gulf
(the later Aenea;
33
this implies good relations with Macedon,
and
Eretria with its important colonies could help him
in
this area). Then
he went
to
the region
of
Mt Pangaeus, from which
he
got money
to
hire troops
(cf.
Hdt. 1. 64.1
on
his later resources from the Strymon
31
A 42,11 249-50; F 88, 163 ; the story accepted
by
Grote, A 25, 327 with
n. 1;
A
1 3
11 321 with
n.
2.
32
F 76, 60-3.
33
F
23, 465.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
VICISSITUDES OF PISISTRATUS 399
valley). Among the mercenaries were Argives, and Lygdamis, a Naxian
volunteer, also brought money and men (Hdt.
i.
61.4). From Eretria
they landed
at
Marathon, where they were joined by supporters from
the city and villages, and the opposition was crushed in battle at Pallene
on the road to Athens. The defeated were reassured by proclamation,
hostages were taken, and the tyranny was now firmly based
on
mer-
cenaries and money (Hdt. 1. 64.1).
Ath.
Pol. 15.4 tells how Pisistratus
disarmed the Athenians
by a
stratagem (also Polyaen. 1. 21.2) which
resembles too closely that ascribed by Thucydides (vi. 58)
to
Hippias
in 514;
its
absence from Herodotus' account
is
suspicious and most
modern critics reject it.
34
The chronology
of
these events
has
been
the
subject
of
long
controversy.
35
Herodotus says (v. 65.3) that the family ruled Athens for
thirty-six years, which certainly end
in
511/10, and he gives ten years
to the second exile, but for the earlier stages he gives no data except
that the first two tyrannies were short. That strongly suggests that his
thirty-six years
are for the
continuous tyranny,
as is now
widely
accepted, putting the battle of Pallene in 546 and the start of the second
exile about 556. Precise dates are found in Ath. Pol. 14—15: seizure of
power in the year of
Corneas,
probably 561/60;
36
five years of tyranny;
eleven years
of
exile, starting
in
the year
of
Hegesias (not otherwise
dated);
six years
for
the second tyranny; ten
for
the second exile,
as
Herodotus. No duration
is
given
for
the third tyranny, which ended
with Pisistratus' death
in the
year
of
Philoneos, probably 528/7.
Aristotle's figures as transmitted leave only one year for the final tyranny
in which Pisistratus grew old (17.1), and they conflict with the statement
{ibid.)
that,
of
thirty-three years since his first accession, he ruled
for
nineteen and was in exile for the rest, i.e. for fourteen years as opposed
to the twenty-one provided
in
Ath. Pol. 14—15. This can be cured by
a single emendation
in
14.4, four years instead
of
eleven for the first
exile,
37
and
the
scheme
is
then self-consistent except that Aristotle,
following Herodotus closely for much
of
his narrative, has described
the first two tyrannies
as
short. Extensive further emendations have
been proposed
38
to
bring Aristotle more closely into line with Hero-
dotus
;
but the sources of
Ath. Pol.
may have worked on a different basis,
taking Herodotus' thirty-six years as the sum of all periods of the rule
of Pisistratus and his sons.
Ath.
Pol.'s figures for these periods, with
the emendation given above, do add up to thirty-six; the corresponding
figures in Pol. i3j5b3o-4 show
a
small discrepancy which is probably
due to different methods of counting.
39
34
A
13, 11 326
n.
1;
A
44, 718;
F
88, 177:
contra
A 6,
52.
35
See F 87 for
bibliography.
3B
Marm.
Par. ep. 40; F 2,
104-9.
37
F
36,
1
23.
38
F
15,
194-5.
3
» F 87, 222.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
4<X>
44. THE TYRANNY OF PISISTRATUS
The Atthidographers were compelled by the pattern
of
their work
to place each event under
a
specific archon,
a
necessity which could
encourage arbitrary dates. Documentary evidence has been suggested,
especially for the two archon-dates given
in
Ath. Pol. 14: for Corneas
(561/60) the decree
of
Aristion granting Pisistratus
a
bodyguard,
for
Hegesias (556/5?)
a
decree exiling Pisistratus.
40
Apart from doubt
whether such decrees would have been preserved, or would have carried
the archons' names,
it is
impossible
to
believe that there were such
documents for the whole series of dates, the more so since those given
in Ath.
Pol.
do not
fit
well with Herodotus' account. But if we ask what
sort
of
chronological datum
is at
all likely
to
have stuck
in
Athenian
memory down to Herodotus' time, much the most probable of
the
data
here offered
is the
total length
of
the continuous tyranny. 546/5
is
thus acceptable for the battle of Pallene, and if we also accept ten years
for
the
second exile, then
the
original usurpation may well belong
somewhere around 560;
41
but
there
is no
reason
to
expect that any
contemporary would have recorded archon-dates
for the
first
two
tyrannies, which except in hindsight would seem no more than passing
episodes.
Pisistratus' marriages and the birth-dates of his sons
42
have also been
brought into
the
argument.
The
first marriage,
to an
Athenian
of
unknown name
and
connexions, produced
two
sons, Hippias
and
Hipparchus, who figure largely in Herodotus, and Thucydides (vi. 55.1)
adds a third, Thessalus, about whom he has nothing to relate. At vi.
5 5
Thucydides asserts from his own superior knowledge of tradition that
Hippias was the eldest son and Pisistratus' successor, and supports this
with arguments that have not always been found conclusive;
43
but that
is
a
question that must be left for Vol. iv. Pisistratus is represented as
having sons who were 'youths'
(verjviai)
at the time of his marriage
to
Megacles' daughter (Hdt. 1. 61.1), and soon afterwards Hippias takes
an active part in discussion of his father's plans in exile; he was present
at
the
battle
of
Marathon,
in old
age (Hdt.
vi.
107.3);
an
d his son
Pisistratus was archon for
522/1.
44
Unless as a son of the tyrant family
he was given office abnormally young, he was born before 550, and
Hippias' own birth must go back into the
5
70s:
no chronology will make
him less than 80
in
490, so we need not resist the possibility that
he
was still older. Secondly, Pisistratus married the daughter of an Argive
named Gorgilus, Timonassa who had been married
to
Archinus,
an
Ambraciot of
the
Cypselid family {Ath.
Pol.
17.4; Hdt. v. 94.1 mentions
but does not name an Argive). Two sons are named, Iophon of whom
40
F 2,
80;
F
32, 46-7.
"
A
6,
544-5.
"
F
i> 445-52-
44
M-L no. 6c5,
cf.
their comment,
p. 20.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
VICISSITUDES OF PISISTRATUS 4OI
nothing further
is
heard,
and
Hegesistratus
who is
said
by Ath. Pol.
{ibid.)
to
have 'brought'
a
thousand Argives
to his
father's help
at
Pallene,
and by
Herodotus (v. 94.1)
to
have been installed
by
Pisistratus
as ruler
of
Sigeum. Herodotus
has
Argive mercenaries
at
Pallene,
so
the Argive connexion
was to
that extent effective,
but he
says nothing
of Hegesistratus
and the
story
in Ath.
Pol.
may be
embroidery.
45
Since
the date
of
the capture
of
Sigeum
is
uncertain (below),
we get no
help
with
the
main chronology. According
to Ath.
Pol. 17.4 some dated
the
marriage with Timonassa
to
Pisistratus' first exile, some
to his
(first)
period
of
power;
it is
unlikely that there
was
evidence either way,
and
(unless
we
adopt
the
improbable suggestion that
he had two
wives
at
once)
46
there
is a
presumption that Timonassa
was
dead
or
divorced
before the marriage
to
Megacles' daughter, so the sons should have been
born before about
557. The
'bastardy'
of
Hegesistratus
(Hdt.
loc.
cit.)
can hardly mean that
the
marriage was irregular,
but the
sons may never
have been brought
to
Athens
or
introduced
to an
Athenian phratry.
There remains
the
context
in
which Herodotus
has set the
final
triumph
of
Pisistratus. When Croesus contemplated
war
against
the
rising power
of
Cyrus, Delphi advised
him to
make
the
most powerful
of the Greeks
his
allies
(1.
53.3),
and
these
he
found
to be the
Spartans
and Athenians;
on
this
peg
Herodotus hung
his
digressions
on
Athens
(1.
59-64)
and
Sparta (65-8). The implication is that
the
battle
of
Pallene
took place before
the
fall
of
Sardis
to
Cyrus,
not
necessarily long before.
Though Herodotus gives regnal years
for
the Lydian kings from Gyges
to Croesus,
it
does
not
follow that
he had
what
we
should call
a
'date'
for Croesus'
end, for
there was
as yet no
general framework into which
such
a
date could
be
fitted.
47
Uncertain indications (Eusebius; Diog.
Laert.
1. 37-8, 95,
11.
3)
have suggested
48
that later Greek chrono-
graphers dated
the
fall
of
Sardis
to
546/5,
but if
that
is
right
it
only
suggests that they read
out
of Herodotus
an
exact synchronism between
Pallene
and
Sardis which
is not in his
text.
The
Nabonidus chronicle
49
(11.
15—17)
has
been held
to
date Cyrus' conquest
of
Lydia
to
April
547,
but only
the
first syllable
of the
name
of the
country survives
and the
reading
of
that
as
LU-
is
extremely doubtful.
50
The
text says that Cyrus
mustered
his
army
in
Nisan
and
crossed
the
Tigris, then next month
marched
to
the country concerned, defeated
its
king,
and
left
a
garrison:
whatever this
is,
it
is not
Herodotus' story
of the
campaign against
Croesus, clearly located
in an
autumn (1. 77.3),
and in any
case Cyrus
45
A 5, 1.2 298, but his chronological argument has no merit.
"
L. Gernet, Anthropologie de la Crete
antique
(Paris, 1968) 344—59.
47
F
31,
133;
M. E.
White, Phoenix
23
(1969)
46.
48
F 14,
I5of,
175, 193; more briefly, on FGrH 244 F 332, 28, 66.
"
B 29, Chronicle 7.
M
B 29, 282.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
4O2 44- THE TYRANNY OF PISISTRATUS
could not have marched so far within the month. The same chronicle
(11.
1-4) provides the clearest date
for
Cyrus' defeat of Astyages,
5
50/49;
and his move against Babylon (m) belongs
to
539.
In
Herodotus
(1.
46.1)
it
is the fall of his brother-in-law Astyages that sets Croesus
thinking
of a
preventive war against the Persians, which should
therefore not be too long after 549, whereas the further narrative after
the fall
of
Sardis (177-178.1) rather suggests that other campaigns
intervened before Cyrus turned on Babylon;
51
that must not be pressed
very hard, but
it
discourages any very late date for the fall of Sardis.
It seems that we do not know this date, but
it
could come
a
year or
two after Pallene.
III.
THE TYRANNY ESTABLISHED
1.
Foreign relations
Whatever
the
date
of
Pisistratus' marriage with Timonassa,
his
connexion with Argos and with the evidently powerful figure
of
Gorgilus must go back before about 560. Apart from the hired Argive
troops at Pallene we see no later effects of the connexion, and after the
defeat of Argos by Sparta at the time of the fall of Sardis (Hdt. 1. 82)
we should expect none. Herodotus (v. 63.2, 90.1) says that
the
Pisistratidae were close friends of Sparta, but there is no indication that
this friendship went back to Pisistratus' own time; similarly, Corinthian
opposition
to
the restoration
of
Hippias c. 500 (Hdt. v. 92) tells us
nothing of their attitude to his father. In Central Greece the connexion
with Thebes remains mysterious; the dedication of Hipparchus at the
Ptoion
52
shows that
it
persisted but does not elucidate its basis. The
support of Eretria is less surprising in view of the old links between
Eretria and eastern Attica (ch. 3yd above, p. 253). Further north the
Thessalian connexion implied in the name of Pisistratus' son Thessalus
is given some body by Thessalian support for Hippias at the end of his
reign, and the Macedonian support implied in Pisistratus' settlement at
Rhaecelus continued into Hippias' time (Hdt. v. 63.2, 94.1).
The maintenance of this wide network raises odd problems, what the
Thebans thought
of
Pisistratus' defeat
of
Megara,
or
what
the
Thessalians thought about his close connexion with Thebes. Ath. Vol.
16.7 claims that Pisistratus maintained peace all round (otct napeaKeva^v
elprjvrjv)
and we hear of no specific mainland wars: but Thucydides (vi.
54.4) says that out of their
5
per cent tax on produce the tyrants, among
other things, 'carried on Athens' wars'
(TOVS
TTOAC/XOUS
8ie<f>epov).
The
financial reference has suggested
53
that they did so with the 'many
51
FJI, 137.
52
BCH 44 (1920)
237ff;
cf. M-L p. 20.
53
A 6, 52.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
THE TYRANNY ESTABLISHED 403
mercenaries'
of
Herodotus
i.
64.1, but this may read too much out of
the passage. The native Athenian army remained in being,
if
we reject
the anecdote
of
its disarmament (above).
It
had clearly been effective
earlier against Megara, and later it fought well against the Thebans (Hdt.
vi.
108),
in
519
if
we can trust that date
(CAH
iv). Herodotus (v. 78)
celebrates Athens' victory over the Boeotians and Chalcidians
in
506
as showing the value
of
freedom: under the tyrants they had been
no
better
at
war than their neighbours
—
though he does not tell us what
neighbours they had then fought. The army had somehow trained and
kept
in
practice, and the record
of
its wars may
be
incomplete;
but
Aristotle may
be
right
in
supposing that Pisistratus himself worked
more by diplomacy than by arms.
His activity overseas raises questions about Athens' fleet. He sub-
dued Naxos by force and installed Lygdamis as tyrant, and this should
be immediately after Pallene since
he
deposited with Lygdamis
the
hostages
he
took after
the
battle (Hdt. 1. 64.1—2). Fifty years later
Aristagoras throught that
a
hundred ships were needed
to
deal with
Naxos (v. 31.3),
but on
this occasion
the
forces
of
Naxos may have
been divided. In
Pol.
1305337-41 Aristotle takes Lygdamis, who 'later'
became tyrant, as an instance of the danger to an oppressive oligarchy
if the people's champion is himself one
of
the oligarchs. The detail
in
the
Constitution
of Naxos (fr.
5 5 8)
sheds
no
further light and
it is
not
clear what sort
of
regime followed the overthrow
of
the oligarchy;
perhaps the money and men that Lygdamis contributed at Pallene were
from Naxos,
and
Pisistratus'
war
was only against
a
faction
of
the
Naxians. There
is no
clear indication that Athens
had
any hand
in
Lygdamis' later support
of
Polycrates' tyranny
in
Samos (Polyaen.
1.
23.2), though this would make sense: Athens
and
Samos
had a
common enemy in Mytilene (below; Hdt. in.
39.4).
Herodotus explicitly
ascribes to Pisistratus the purification of Delos
(1.
64.2), repeated more
thoroughly by Athens
in
winter 426/5 (Thuc. in. 104.1—2),
a
notable
assertion of Athens' primacy among the Ionian cities (cf. Solon fr. 4a).
Further afield, Herodotus never explains how Athens had lost Sigeum
since
it was
adjudicated
to her by
Periander,
but he is
clear that
Pisistratus had
to
fight for
it
before installing his son Hegesistratus
as
governor; and
a
substantial naval force might
be
needed against
the
Mytileneans. The date is quite indeterminate. The Persian conquest
is
probably not relevant: Aeolis is included, rather cursorily, in Harpagus'
reduction of Ionia (Hdt.
1.
141.1,151.3, 171.1), but we need not suppose
that
the
Persians greatly minded whether Mytilene
or
Athens held
Sigeum. Calculations of Hegesistratus' age, which have played
a
large
part in the argument, are thus irrelevant; but his appointment, together
with Hippias' continued hold
on
the place
at
the end
of
the century,
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
404 44-
THE
TYRANNY OF PISISTRATUS
suggests that Sigeum was treated as
a
family possession. For its value
to Athens see above,
p.
374.
The Thracian Chersonese is a more complex matter. Herodotus (vi.
34-41) tells how
the
Dolonci consulted Delphi about their war with
their neighbours the Apsinthii, and were told to take as their leader the
first man who offered them hospitality
on
their way home;
and
this
proved
to be
Miltiades son
of
Cypselus,
of
a wealthy Athenian house
descended from Philaeus son
of
Ajax, who had won
a
victory (unfor-
tunately not dated) at Olympia with a four-horse chariot. Pisistratus
at
this time was
in
control, but Miltiades was powerful too (eSwaoreve)
and found the position irksome; so after himself consulting Delphi he
took with him all the Athenians who wished
to
go
to
the Chersonese,
where he was installed
as'
tyrant' and built a wall from Cardia to Pactye
to keep the Apsinthii out. Continually
at
war with Lampsacus
on
the
other shore
of
the Hellespont, he was
at
one point taken prisoner and
released only after Croesus had threatened the Lampsacenes with total
destruction. Later
he
died childless, leaving
his
property
and his
principality
to
Stesagoras, the son of his half-brother Cimon. The rest
of the Chersonese story concerns the tyrant's sons
(CAH
iv), but
at
home Pisistratus had
at
some time exiled Cimon, somehow formidable
in spite
of
the simplicity which earned him
the
nickname
KoaXe/xos
(' booby'); in exile he won three consecutive Olympic victories with the
same team
of
four horses,
and had the
second victory
in
53
2
54
proclaimed
in
Pisistratus' name,
so was
reconciled with
him and
returned
to
enjoy his property
at
Athens (Hdt. vi. 103).
There are problems of chronology again, and of relations between the
tyrants
of
the Chersonese
and
those
of
Athens. The discovery that
Cypselus
was
archon
for
597/6 allows
us to
date Miltiades' birth
relatively early.
55
Herodotus' wording at
vi.
35.1 (efye
p.kv
TO
TTOLV
xparos
TJeialaTparos) and his comparative disregard
of
the earlier tyrannies
have led some
56
to date Miltiades' departure after the final establishment
of Pisistratus' power. But even
if
the invitation
of
the Dolonci came
(or was arranged) very soon after Pallene, there is still much to crowd
in before
the
fall
of
Sardis, after which Croesus could
no
longer
intervene
at
Lampsacus; and there are reasons (above)
for
not dating
the fall
of
Croesus too late. Others
57
have preferred the period
of
the
first tyranny, which may
at the
time have seemed
to
Miltiades more
permanent than
it
proved
to
be, and this would allow proper time
for
the development
of
this sequence
of
events.
The belief that Miltiades and Pisistratus were political allies took
its
54
For the
date
see
A
66,
156—8;
F ;,
300.
55
M-L no. 6a2; F 5, 299.
56
A 66, 166
n. 3; F 9,
328-9.
57
A
13,
n
316
n.
3;
F
73, 69—70;
F
74,
8.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008