Archaeology; Civilization, Ancient; Despotism; Greece -- History -- To 146 B.C.; Wealth
Everything tended to confirm this view. The greatness of Dionysius
naturally drew attention to that of Gelo and Hiero, his predecessors at
Syracuse. Gelo and Hiero were, like Dionysius, military despots. To
later generations they were the great soldiers who had saved Sicily from
the Carthaginians and Etruscans. Their contemporary Pausanias had tried
to raise himself from generalissimo of the Greek army to tyrant of all
Greece[173]. These events were still in men’s minds. Of the earlier
tyrants they had only hazy notions[174]. The best remembered were
probably the Peisistratids, both from their late date and from the fact
that they were Athenians. Peisistratus, as has been already noticed,
chanced early in his career to have distinguished himself as a soldier.
It so happened that Polycrates, the other great tyrant of the latter
half of the sixth century, also engaged in war. It was forced upon him
by the Persians. The evidence is all against the view that it was the
basis of his power. But the warlike achievements of these two rulers,
the last and perhaps the greatest of the earlier tyrants, lent colour to
Aristotle’s hasty generalizations[175].
Aristotle himself, speaking of the ways of maintaining a tyranny, says
that “the traditional method, in accordance with which most tyrants
conduct their government, is said to have been mainly instituted by
Periander of Corinth[176]?” Only a few pages later in the same work[177]
we are told that Periander abandoned the policy of his father Cypselus
and that he did so by becoming warlike or in other words by
approximating more to Dionysius of Syracuse. Once more then the typical
tyrant of Aristotle is a ruler who departs from the policy of a typical
founder of an early tyranny.
For an example of the victory of the Aristotelian view over the truth we
may compare Herodotus, I. 59, which states that Peisistratus, who had
fought against Megara, made himself tyrant by means of the faction of
the Hillmen, with Justin, II. 8, according to whom “Peisistratus, as
though he had conquered (the Megareans) for himself, not for his
country, seized by craft the tyranny.” Justin is a perversion of a
passage in Chapter 14 of the Aristotelian _Constitution of Athens_,
which states that Peisistratus, “having the reputation of being a great
friend of the people, and having greatly distinguished himself in the
war against Megara,” secured his bodyguard and the tyranny. Aristotle
misinterprets the Hillmen and exaggerates the importance of the Megarean
expedition. Justin omits the former altogether and makes the latter the
sole cause of Peisistratus obtaining the tyranny.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account