herodotus on tyranny

Herodotus on TyrannyAuthor(s): Arther FerrillSource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 27, H. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1978), pp. 385-398Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435619 .Accessed: 11/11/2014 03:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 219.246.66.119 on Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:40:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ABHANDLUNGEN

HERODOTUS ON TYRANNY

1. The Current Interpretation Until the last few years modern scholars have been emphatic in the

contention that there were two periods of Greek tyrannyl. In the early period, down to about 400 B. C., tyranny was a response to aristocratic control of the city-states. Only through tyranny were the Greeks able to destroy the strangle-hold of the aristocracy on the middle and lower classes. Individual tyrants usurped power with "popular" support, sometimes but not always by force, and subordinated, or exiled, or executed the aristo- crats of their city2. Modern historians have generally believed that this period of tyranny was a necessary step in the evolution toward democracy3.

After 400 B. C. tyranny can be regarded in the traditional manner as the government of an arbitrary, despotic, and frequently cruel ruler who is completely dominant in the state. In this second period tyranny is unpopular and the very opposite of democratic institutions. All the modern connotations of the word tyrant are appropriate for this second period of Greek tyranny4.

It is not my purpose to challenge the modern division of Greek tyranny into two periods although some speculations about this schema will be made in the conclusion5. There is, however, a corollary to the modern view

I The bibliography on Greek tyranny is extensive. The following list is not complete, but hopefully it includes the most important works: H. G. Plass, Die Tyrannis in ibren beiden Perioden bei den a/ten Griechen (Bremen, 1852); E. Zeller, ,,Ober den Begriff der Tyrannis bei den Griechen," Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1910), I, 398-409; P. N. Ure, The Origins of Tyranny (Cambridge, 1922); Malcolm MacLaren, Jr., "Tyranny", in The Greek Political Experience: Studies in Honor of Willidm Kelly Prentice (Princeton, 1941), pp. 78-92; Mary White, ,,Greek Tyranny", Phoenix, 9 (1955), 1-18; A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (New York, 1963); and Helmut Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 2 vols. (Munich, 1967). See also the irnportant works cited in n. 5 and in n. 39.

2 The definition of a tyrant as a popular usurper of power is widespread. See J. B. Bury and R. Meiggs. A History of Greece, 4th ed. (New York 1975), p. 105. Bury and Meiggs deal with the early tyrants under the heading "Democratic Movements".

3 W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford, 1928), Vol. II, 339, in an appendix entitled "Herodotus on Tyranny" say: "We see that it (tyranny) was a necessary stage in the progress of the state ..

4 Plato and Aristotle, it is agreed, are unequivocal in their condemnation of tyranny. See Andrewes, Greek Tyrants, pp. 28-29.

5 Some recent works have suggested a modification of the traditional view. Claude Moss6, La Tyrannie dans la Grice Antique (Paris, 1969), sees a closer connection between

26 Historia, Band XXVII/3 (1978) 6 Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden


386 ARTHER FERRILL

which is perhaps not as sound as it is generally believed to be. That corollary is that the Greeks of the early period did not use the word "tyrant" with its modern connotations of evil. According to nineteenth and twentieth century scholars the word had, in addition to the evil connotations commonly associated with it, the purely "neutral" meaning of "ruler."6 All scholars are agreed that the word is frequently used in this neutral sense by the lyric poets, the tragedians, Herodotus, and Thucydides7. Therefore, when these early Greek literary figures use the word, it is not possible to assume auto- matically that they necessarily disapprove of the man to whom they apply it.

I have serious reservations about the validity of the above view, but in this paper I am limiting my study solely to Herodotus' use of the word tyrannos. Modern scholars are in agreement that the word tyrannos, as used by Herodotus, had a vague and ambiguous meaning8. How and Wells say that he sometimes used tyrannos to mean "nothing more than absolute monarch," but also that he used it to mean "a rule illegal in origin and character." According to them Herodotus often termed the same person both "basileus" and "tyrannos" as though there were very little difference9.

Other scholars have made the same claim with greater precision, intensity, and clarity.

"He makes no firm distinction", wrote A. A. Andrewes, "between the terms he uses. For the old-established kings of the East he usually says king but sometimes tyrant, for the upstart tyrannies of Greek cities mostly tyrant but often king or monarchos, and within a single chapter he uses both tyrannos and basileus for Telys, a late sixth- century ruler of Sybaris whom Aristotle would certainly have clas- sified as tyrant. It is clear that it did not much matter to him which of these words he used ... "10

the first phase of Greek tyranny and its later forms than has been fashionable. Robert Drews, "The First Tyrants in Greece", Historia, 21 (1972), 129-144, argues that the cause of early tyranny was "the desire for power and prestige". Although Drews does not make the point, if he is right, and I believe that he is, his argument could be used to modify the traditional classifications of Greek tyranny.

6 For the bibliography on the word tyrant, in addition to the items cited above in n. 1, see Berve, Die Tyrannis, II, 517.

7 A good, representative discussion is that by Andrewes, Greek Tyrants, pp. 20-30. 8 How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, II, 338, are the only exception: "The

picture of tyranny and tyrants given by H. is one of almost unrelieved blackness." But they are very inconsistent in this view as is evident from the quotations in the text below.

9 How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, II, 359, n. 1. See also, MacLaren, Greek Political Experience, p. 78: "Herodotus also applies both tyrannos and basileus to the same man indiscriminately." 10 Andrewes, Greek Tyrants, p. 27.


Herodotus on Tyranny 387

Mary White, in an important and intelligent discussion of Greek tyranny, made essentially the same observation about the use of the word tyrant in Herodotus:

"Although the Attic use of the word was becong increasingly coloured with this derogatory meaning, the Ionic continued to have both senses. The two fifth-century historians, the Ionian Herodotos and the Athenian Thucydides illustrate this. Herodotos applies it constantly to oriental kings and their power, occasionally even to governors or satraps, and regularly to the various Greek tyrants, in fact to one-man rule of any kind with no implicaton about the character of the rule.""11

Berve also gave his imprimatur to the current view: ,,Den menschlich-religiosen Aspekt teilt mit dem groBen Tragiker sein Zeitgenosse Herodot, der auch darin mit ihm iibereinstimmt, daB er, aus demselben Grunde wie dieser, die Bezeichnungen basileus und tyrannos nicht selten promiscue gebraucht. In den erzahlenden Partien mag es zunachst erstaunen, daB der Mann, der selbst an einem Versuch, die Tyrannis in seiner Heimat Halikarnassos zu sttirzen, beteiligt gewesen war, keine unbedingte Tyrannenfeindschaft zeigt."12

In a recent work that deals directly with Herodotus K. H. Waters wrote that ". . . the 'constitutional' aspect of tyranny interested him [Herodotus] very little. Similarly, he characterizes by the same terms persons who may well be legally monarches, e. g., by heredity; rt6pxvvoq and PMa&xe6q together with their congeners of abstract or verbal form are completely interchangeable, with ,oU'vMpXoq occasionally substituting for either."'3

It is my thesis that Herodotus did not use basileus, monarchos, and tyrannos interchangeably in an arbitrary fashion 14. His use of the words is remarkably consistent and illustrates throughout his history an overwhelming hostility toward tyranny. The following pages will deal with specific appearances of the words basileusr, monarchos, and tyrannos, but in order to determine the significance of certain individual passages, the following statistics should be kept in mind. Altogether in Herodotus' history, basileus and its variants are used 860 times. Monarchos, on the other hand, is used relatively infre-

11 White, Phoenix, 9 (1955), 3. 12 Berve, Die Tyrannis, I, 195. 13 Kenneth H. Waters, Herodotos on Tyrants and Despots: A Study in Objctivity (Hi-

storia: Einzelschriften, Heft 15, 1971), p. 6. 14 Throughout the paper, when I use the words tyrannos, basileus and monarchos,

I include their related variants: nupavvweoc, ?upzw(V, aP 2CLOx, a t60, AarLknEn, MMLX? t a, tLouvoapXF&, and 4ouvopX( E.

260


388 ARTHER FERRILL

quently, 19 times. Tyrannos appears 128 times, much more often than monarchos, much less often than basileusl5.

2. Basileus (King) Undoubtedly the reason for the frequent use of basileus is that Herodotus

normally applied this term to the kings of Asia Minor and the East, includ- ing Persia, as well as to the hereditary monarchs of Greece. Most of the references to basileus we can therefore ignore. Whenever Herodotus applies the term to an obviously legitimate monarch such as Croesus or Xerxes, he is using it as we would expect him to. What is of great significance to this study is Herodotus' use of basiles to refer to historical figures who are ordinarily considered to be tyrants, that is, rulers who had absolute power and exercised it arbitrarily but who were not in any true sense legitimate or constitutional kings. If in fact Herodotus used basileus to describe such rulers, it would be necessary to concede that he used the terms basileus and yrannos interchangeably.

Actually Herodotus applied the title basileus to tyrants very infrequently, and for special reasons. Of the 860 appearances of the word basileus only 8 refer to tyrants'6. In four of the eight cases basileus is used in direct discourse. One of them is a quotation from a Delphic oracle given to Cypse- lus and referring to him as basileus of Corinth (V, 92). Since this is a direct quotation from the oracle it suggests nothing about Herodotus' use of the word. In another case a fisherman, giving a large fish to Polycrates of Samos, addressed the tyrant as "Q Bcaes-i." (III, 42). Periander at one point calls his son Lycophron,

"Kop[vtou rr% evaccLtovo; 3a?s6 (III, 52). Else- where an Athenian envoy in direct speech addressed Gelo, the tyrant of Syracuse, as "'Q ,3a?sXiu" (VII, 161). The fact that these notorious tyrants are referred to in direct speech as basileus suggests that the word "tyrant" had an evil connotation and could not be used in a direct address to a ruler. It certainly does not indicate that Herodotus used the terms basileus and tyrannos synonymously and interchangeably. When Herodotus refers to Polycrates, Periander, Cypselus, and Gelon in his own words (rather than in direct discourse) he calls them tyrannos, not basileus.

15 For convenience I have taken these figures from J. Enoch Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge, 1938), s. v., oc(XetoL (9), aLXe6q (624), paomeC c (98), XaLXTGn En (68), caXOLXrnoq (60), aGLXLx6q (1), Vouvapxico (3), .uvotcvpXt(v (6), pLo6vapXo4 (10), .npmvve6co (27), )pocvvE (36), s'popavvoq (65). In general Powell is quite accurate although I disagree with him on a few details. See below, n. 16.

16 Powell, Lexicon, s. V., aLhC?X5 (8) and aLj(- (1), lists nine, but one of them (Hdt., III, 140) is inaccurate. The reference in that passage is not to a Greek tyrant but to Darius. For specific references to other disputed passages see the text and notes below.



There are four remaining passages (out of 860 )where Herodotus appar- ently uses basileus interchangeably with tyrannos. One of them is a well known passage cited more often than any other to prove that Herodotus did not make any clear distinctions between kingship and tyranny. In it Herodotus uses both basileus and tyrannos to describe Telys, the ruler of Sybaris (V, 44). But actually Herodotus very carefully indicates that his story comes from two opposing sources:

"Just at this time, the Sybarites say, they and their king (basileus) Telys were about to make war upon Croton, and the Crotoniates, greatly alarmed, begged Dorieus to aid them. Dorieus was prevailed upon, took part in the war against Sybaris, and had a share in taking the town. Such is the account which the Sybarites give of what was done by Dorieus and his companions. The Crotoniates, on the other hand, maintain that no foreigner lent them aid in their war against the Sybarites, except Callias the Elean, a soothsayer of the race of the Iamidae; and he only forsook Telys the Sybaritic king (tyrannos), and deserted to their side, when he found on sacrificing that the vic- tims were not favourable to an attack on Croton. Such is the account which each party gives of these matters" (Rawlinson).

In relating the version favorable to the Sybarites and their ruler Telys, Herodotus used the term basileus. In the version of Croton, hostile to Sybaris and Telys, he uses tyrannos. Clearly he is using the terminology of his opposing sources, but probably intentionally, for literary effect, to draw upon the evil connotations of the word tyrannos. Basileus and tyrannos are not used interchangeably. It is the difference in meaning of the two words which gives the passages some dramatic color, color which was lost entirely by Rawlinson's decision to translate both words as "king".

Another passage in which Herodotus has been accused of using basileus and tyrannos as synonyms is VI, 23-24. The subject of the anecdote is Scythas, ruler of Zancle, whom Herodotus describes as both basileus and monarchos, but not as tyrannos. Tyrannos was reserved for Scythas' enemies, Anaxilaus, the ruler of Rhegium, and Hippocrates, ruler of Gela. Many scholars believe that Scythas was probably not a true king and that he was as much a tyrannos as Anaxilaus and Hippocrates'7. This is based partly upon the assumption that Herodotus used the terms basileus and tyrannos interchangeably, and partly on the assumption that Scythas, who was not a native of Zancle, could have acquired control there only through an illegal

17 See the discussion, with bibliography, in How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus VI, 23.


390 ARTHER FERRILL

usurpation of power in alliance with Hippocrates, the tyrant of Gela18. If, however, Herodotus did not use the terms basileus and tyrannos interchangeably, how can this passage be explained?

There are two possibilities, one of which is clearly preferable to the easy assumption that Herodotus simply used basileus and tyrannos as synonyms. One is that Scythas was in fact the legitimate king of Zancle. There is no positive evidence one way or the other, but it is unlikely in light of the known political patterns of Sicily at the time19.

The other possibility, however, is really the best solution to the problem. It is that Herodotus' source was favorable to Scythas and referred to him by way of compliment as basileus. We have already seen that tyrants were addressed by their flatterers not as tyrannos but as basileus. There is no doubt that Herodotus' source was favorable to Scythas. Herodotus strongly emphasizes Scythas' reputation for virtue20. We can assume then that Herodotus' source did not tell him that Scythas was a tyrant and that Herodotus thought of him as a basileus whether in fact he was legitimately basileus or not.

There are only two other instances which have been used to prove that Herodotus regarded basileus and tyrannos as synonyms. One concerns Aristophilides, ruler of Tarentum (III, 136). Unfortunately we know nothing more about him other than what Herodotus tells us, which is very little except that he was a kind man and basileus of Tarentum. Some scholars have assumed that Aristophilides was in fact a tyrant like most of the rulers of Western Greek cities and that we have here simply another case of Herodotus using basileus synonymously with tyrannos21.

That assumption is unsound for two reasons. One reason, on the basis of the evidence in the text above, is that there is no good cause to assume that Herodotus did equate basileus with tyrannos. But another independent and strong argument is that Tarentum, as a Spartan colony, is one of the few Western Greek cities where we could reasonably expect to find a legitimate constitutional monarchy22. Aristophilides was not actually a tyrannos whom Herodotus carelessly called basileus. He was in all likelihood a basileus, and Herodotus' use of the word was correct, proper and consistent.

To this point all of the examples cited by scholars to show that Herodotus

18 T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948), pp. 384-385. 19 Dunbabin, Western Greeks, p. 385, with bibliography. 20 Hdt., VI, 24. See also the comments by How and Wells, Commentarv on Herodotus,

VI, 23. 21 Thus Powell, Lexicon, s. v., aLXeu', lists this as an example of basileus applied to

a tyrant. 22 Dunbabin, Western Greeks, p. 385, and How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus,

I, 298.



used basileus as the equivalent of tyrannos are actually quite misleading. Only one of the 860 uses of basileus and its variants remains to be considered. The passage in question concerns Aristagoras, tyrant of Miletus (V, 35). Hero- dotus makes it clear that Aristagoras was an unpopular tyrant (V, 37), but he does once use the word Pamkc[-n (kingship) to describe Aristagoras' government: "His fear was great, lest ... he should be ousted from the government (kingship) of Miletus". Since it was Aristagoras himself who was fearing (thinking), it is reasonable for Herodotus to assume that he thought of himself in a flattering way, and thought "kingship" rather than "tyranny". This argument is admittedly a weak one and would not stand on its own if there were other examples of Herodotus using basileus interchangeably with tyrannos. But in 859 out of 860 cases there is no real in- consistency in his use of the word basileus and a weak argument in the one remaining case can be strengthened by the sheer weight of numbers. Or perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule.

3. Tyrantos

Scholars assume that Herodotus used the word tyrannos frequently to mean simply "ruler", and sometimes to mean a usurper of power, but they insist that he had no sharply defined concept of tyranny in the Platonic or Aristotelian sense. That is, Herodotus did not always use the word to suggest that a particular ruler arbitrarily abused his power. Mary White states the current view most precisely:

"Herodotus applies it [tyrannos] constantly to oriental kings and their power, occasionally even to governors or satraps, and regularly to the various Greek tyrants, in fact to one-man rule of any kind with no implication about the character of the rule ... Thucydides, on the other hand, restricts the term to the well known tyrants of Greece and the West or to tyranny as an illegal and despotic form of government" 23.

White's distinction is misleading. When Herodotus used the word tyrannos, he used it with the connotation of arbitrary, despotic, and evil government, and he was very consistent in using it that way.

It is true that Herodotus occasionally used tyrannos to refer to oriental kings, but, when he did (only about 20 times in his entire work), the word did not have the simple meaning of "ruler". It meant despotic and arbitrary ruler. And this was a legitimate classical Greek usage of the term. Aristotle himself divided tyranny into three basic types - one of which was oriental monarchy24. He recognized that oriental monarchy was constitutionally

23 See above, n. 11. 24 Arist., Pol., 1295a and 1285a.


392 ARTHER FERRILL

legitimate, but because its unlimited power was frequently abused, it was also tyrannical. Herodotus' view of oriental monarchy was essentially the same as Aristotle's. An oriental monarch was a legitimate basileus, but the bybris of the Persian king made him a tyrannos, a major theme of the Persian wars25.

Despite statements in modern scholarship to the contrary, Herodotus does not use the word tyrannos to refer to satraps and governors. There is only one exception. At the very end of his history (IX, 116) Herodotus says: "The whole district was under the rule of (i.e., was tyrannized by) Artayctas, one of the king's satraps; who was a Persian, but a wicked and a cruel man". In this case the description "Csrt.v g xdt O'VaaOoxhc" undoubtedly accounts for the very exceptional use of the verb "tyrannize" in discussing the administration of a satrap. Also important is the fact that the area "tyrannized" by the satrap was in Greece, and was probably not his official satrapy. Except for this one instance, Herodotus reserved the word tyrannos to describe oriental kings and Greek tyrants226.

There is one famous passage in Herodotus (III, 80-82) where his use of the words "tyrant" and "ctyranny" is especially significant. The scene is set in Persia after the death of King Cambyses. The Persian nobles met to determine the fate of the government, and at the meeting, according to Herodotus, three of the leading Persian nobles, Otanes, Megabyzus, and Darius, engaged in a debate about the best possible form of government. Otanes argued for democracy:

"True it is that kings (tyrants), possessing as they do all that heart can desire, ought to be void of envy, but the contrary is seen in their conduct toward the citizens ... But the worst of all is, that he sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and rapes women. The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, equality before the law; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king (monarchos) is wont to commit".

25 See the observation of Chester G. Starr, The Awakening of the Greek Historical Spirit (New York, 1968), pp. 136-137. Specifically on bybris, there is a famous line in Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 1. 873: "Pride (hybris) breeds tyranny."

26 Powell, Lexicon, s. v., rpxvocvv$o and 'ru'pacvvo4, lists two other passages which are supposed to be references to satraps. They are not. One passage (V, 12) concerns two Paeonians who sought Darius' help in establishing a tyranny. Presumably Powell assumed that they wanted to be official satraps, but there is no evidence to support that. The other passage (V, 32) says that Pausanias the Spartan was affianced to a lady of the Achaemenid house "when he conceived the desire of becoming tyrant of Greece." Pausanias was never an official satrap of the Persian Empire.



Megabyzus then argued for an oligarchy:

"In all that Otanes has said to persuade you to put down monarchy (-upavv[4), he observed, I fully concur; but his recommendation that we should call the people to power seems to me not the best advice. For there is nothing so void of understanding, nothing so full of wantonness (hybris) as the unwieldly rabble. It were folly not to be borne for men, while seeking to escape the wantonness (hybris) of a tyrant, to give themselves up to the wantonness (hybris) of a rude unbridled mob".

Finally Darius, who won the debate, spoke out: "Lastly, to sum up all in a word, whence, I ask, was it that we got the freedom which we enjoy? - did democracy give it us, or oligarchy, or a monarch? As a single man recovered our freedom for us, my sentence is that we keep to the rule of one

Darius won the debate and became king, but it is the vocabulary of the debate which is our immediate concern. Otanes and Megabyzus, both of whom opposed monarchy, used the word tyrannos to describe monarch and emphasized the effect of hybris on the tyrannos. Darius, on the other hand, championed monarchy but never once used the word tyrannos as the equivalent of monarchos. In this passage there is a very clear distinction between the arbitrary whim of a tyrannos and the just rule of a legitimate monarchos. What Otanes and Megabyzus were saying in essence was that a monarchos could easily become a tyrannos. Since these speeches were undoubtedly never given, and were the product of Herodotus' imagination in an attempt to deal with problems of political philosophy27, we can conclude that he was not only aware of the evil connotations of the word tyrannos, but that he used the word with those connotations in mind28.

In most of the cases where Herodotus calls an oriental monarch a tyrant there should be no difficulty in determining his meaning. Like Aristotle he regarded oriental monarchy as despotic and tyrannical. This is implicit

27 On the use of speeches in Hdt. see especially Lieselotte Solmsen, "Speeches in Herodotus' Account of the Ionian Revolt," AJP, 64 (1943), 104-207 and "Speeches in Herodotus' Account of the Battle of Plataea," CP, 39 (1944), 241-253.

28 Much has been written about this debate. How and Wells, Commentary on Herodotus, I, 278, call this passage "the beginning of Greek political philosophy." Herodotus is ordinarily regarded as an admirer of Periclean democracy, but Hermann Strasburger, "Herodot und das perikleische Athen," Historia, 4 (1955), 1-25, has argued (unconvin- cingly) against this view. On the significance of the Persian debate see Karl Friedrich Stroheker, "Zu den Anfangen der monarchischen Theorie in der Sophistik," Historia, 2 (1954), 381-412. Waters, Herodotos on Tyrant:, pp. 11-12 (especially n. 28 for additional bibliography).


394 ARTHER FERRILL

throughout his history and it is occasionally explicit as in the passage discussed above. Sometimes he contrasted tyranny with the blessings of freedom or self-government: "Thus the nations over that whole extent of country observed the blessing of self-government, but they fell again under the sway of kings (tupacvvtego), in the manner which I will now relate" (1, 96)29.

In several cases where Herodotus calls an eastern king a tyrannos he goes on to discuss a cruel and arbitrary crime committed by the man in question. One example is the passage in which he discusses the plan of Astyages, King of the Medes, to murder the infant Cyrus (I, 109). Another is the story of Cyaxares' treatment of some Scythian hunters: "On their return to Cyaxares with empty hands, that monarch, who was hottempered, as he showed upon the occasion, received them very rudely and insultingly"30.

Actually in the text and footnotes above I have discussed virtually all of the instances in which Herodotus uses tyrannos or its variants to describe a non-Greek king. In each case, despite modern scholars and modern transla- tions, the words "tyrant", "tyranny" and "tyrannize" could be translated as such (rather than ruler, monarchy and govern, etc.) without doing vio- lence to Herodotus, and, in fact, his meaning would be more faithfully rendered.

In regard to Herodotus' use of the word tyrannos to describe Greeks, modern scholars admit that he occasionally expressed very strong criticisms of Greek tyranny. The passage most often cited is V, 78:

"Thus did the Athenians increase in strength. And it is plain enough, not from this instance only, but from many everywhere, that freedonm is an excellent thing; since even the Athenians, who, while they continued under the rule of tyrants, were not a whit more valiant than any of their neighbours, no sooner shook off the yoke than they became decidedly the first of all. These things show that, while under- going oppression, they let themselves be beaten, since then they worked for a master; but so soon as they got their freedom, each man was eager to do the best he could for himself. So fared it now with the Athenians".

This strong sentiment is regarded by many as exceptional in Herodotus, and by others it is regarded as the "dominant" but not exclusive attitude. All agree that sometimes Herodotus talked about Greek tyrants and tyranny in a "neutral" fashion without the connotation of evil. However, such a view is not compatible with the evidence.

29 Another passage in which the contrast between freedom and tyranny is madc is 1, 95-101, on the rise of Deioces, King of the Medes. See also, II, 147.

30 There are many similar passages: I, 6; 12-14; 86-89; VIII, 142.



There are actually many passages in Herodotus where the contrast between tyranny and freedom is made quite explicit. One is much stronger than the passage quoted above. According to Herodotus the Spartans regret- ted their role in driving Hippias out of Athens, because they realized that if the Athenians "were oppressed by a tyranny, they \vould be weak and submissive" (V, 91). So the Spartans recalled H-ippias from the Hiellespont, summoned their allies, and proposed that Hippias should be reinstated as tyrant of Athens. Sosicles, the Corinthian envoy, objected:

"Surely the heaven will soon be below, and the earth above, and men will henceforth live in the sea, and fish take their place upon the dry land, since you, Lacedaemoniians, propose to put down free governments in the cities of Greece, and to set up tyrannies in their stead. There is nothing in the world so unjust, nothing so bloody, as a tyranny. If, however, it seems to you a desirable thing to have the cities under despotic rule, begin by putting a tyrant over yourselves, and then establish despots in the other states ... We adjure you, by the common gods of Greece, plant not despots (rupavvt8m4) in her cities" (V, 92).

There are so many other passages in which the distinction between freedom and tyranny is explicit that it would be tiring to quote or discuss them all3O. And it cannot be claimed that Herodotus was so strongly opposed to monarchy that he made no distinctions between tyranny and kingship. The Persian debate quoted above shows that he did make a distinction, and when Sosicles, in the speech quoted immediately above, said: "If, however, it seems to you a desirable thing to have the cities under despotic rule, begin by putting a tyrant over yourselves, and then establish despots in the other states", he was addressing his remarks to Spartans who were at the time under the strong influence of their basileus Cleomenes.

In fact the distinction between basileus and tyrannos was quite sharp. We have already seen that Herodotus did not use the term basileus to refer to Greek tyrants. Also, he did not use the word tyrannos to refer to Greek kings unless he believed that the kings were really tyrannical. By far the best example is the famous case of Pheidon, King of Argos. Aristotle says that Pheidon was a basileus who became a tyrannos32. Herodotus does not even do Pheidon the courtesy of calling him basileus. He describes him merely as "Pheidon, king (tyrannos) of the Argives, who established weight

31 1, 62; III, 143; IV, 137; V, 55, 65; VI, 5, 22, 123; VIII, 142. 32 Arist., Pol., 1310b.


396 ARTHER FERRILL

and measures throughout the Peloponnese, and was the most insolent (i.e., had the most hybris) of all the Grecians" (VI, 127).

In his history Herodotus draws a dark and bloody picture of Greek tyrants and tyranny. His account of the rise of Peisistratus could easily have been the source of one of the definitions of tyrannos given by Plato and Aristotle33. Cypselus and Periander are archetypal tyrants and the tyrants of Ionia are treated as unpopular traitors supported in power by oriental despotism34. The unpopularity of tyranny is strongly emphasized by Herodotus and in the cases where it was necessary for him to concede that the tyrant was popular with his subjects he suggests that those subjects preferred slavery to freedom35.

There are, however, a few passages which seem at first glance to support the modern contention that Herodotus used the word tyrannos with a "neutral" meaning simply to indicate "ruler". We know that Herodotus never referred to a tyrant as basileus except in direct speech when the person speaking wanted to flatter the tyrant. We should not expect to find the tyrant referring to himself as tyrannos if the word had the connotation of an evil and arbitrary ruler. And in fact there are no instances where a tyrant is addressed as tyrannos or refers to himself as tyrannos. But there are two passages in Herodotus (and as far as I can determine, no more than that) where a tyrant refers to his rule as a tyranny.

In one case, Xerxes, speaking to Artabanus before sending him to Susa to serve as regent, says: "Have no fear, therefore, on this score; but keep a brave heart and uphold my house and empire (tyranny). To you, and you only, do I entrust my sovereignty (scepter)" (VII, 52).

In the other passage, Periander, tyrant of Corinth, tries to persuade his disaffected young son Lycophron to return to Corinth to take his place as ruler of the city: "Which is better, my son, to fare as now you fare, or to receive my crown (tyranny) and all the good things that I now possess

. (III, 52). In the next line, however, he addresses his son directly as basileus. But Periander's argument did not prevail, so he sent his daughter to try to persuade her brother to return home: "Do you wish the kingdom (tyranny), brother, to pass into strange hands ... ? Power (tyranny) is a slippery thing - it has many suitors ...; - let not your inheritance go to another" (III, 53).

33 Compare Hdt., I, 59-64, to Plato, Pol., VIII, 562-570, and Arist., Ath. Pol., 13-17. 34 On the Corinthian tyrants see Hdt., III, 48-53 and V, 92. On the Ionian tyrants:

IV, 136-42. 35 On the unpopularity of tyranny: Hdt., IV, 137; V, 37; VI, 104. On the preference

for slavery rather than freedom: I, 62; III, 143.



In the above passages it is clear that Xerxes, Periander, and his daughter are speaking in intimate and Machiavellian terms to their closest associates in power. In such circumstances they are prepared to admit that their power is tyrannical. There is nothing unusual about this, and the above passages do not prove that Herodotus used tyrannis with a "neutral" meaning36. Rawlinson, by translating it with "neutral" words, actually reduced the force of Herodotus' prose.

Given Herodotus' numerous and specific objections to tyranny, there is no reason to assume that he uses "tyrant" with a neutral meaning. It is true that he does not always paint the tyrants as totally wicked and perverse men. Neither did Aristotle, although the philosopher leaves no doubt about his view of tyranny37. Even modern historians occasionally call historical figures "tyrant" or "despot" and write about the "achievements" and "construc- tive qualities" of their rule. Hitler and his autobahns are a famous example.

4. Monarch)os The modern argument is that Herodotus uses the words basileus, tyrannos,

and monarchos interchangeably and frequently with the neutral meaning of "ruler". We have seen that Herodotus does not use basileus and tyrannos interchangeably except in ways which preserve the distinctions between the words.

Actually it is the word monarchos which has the neutral meaning of "ruler" and it was used by Herodotus interchangeably with both basileus and tyrannos. The word is used infrequently by Herodotus (only 19 times), but it is applied to oriental kings (or tyrants), Greek kings, and Greek tyrants 38. There is nothing unusual about the use of the word and there is no reason to assume that Herodotus did make distinctions between kingship and tyranny simply because he occasionally called kings and tyrants "sole rulers".

5. Conclusion

The common assumption that Herodotus used the word tyrannos with the simple "neutral" meaning of "ruler" rather than "arbitrary and despotic ruler" cannot be supported by the evidence. This is significant for what it tells us about Herodotus and about his contemporaries. Tyranny, if we can

36 Cf. Pericles' comment to the Athenians, Thucydides, II, 63: "For by this time your empire has become a tyranny which in the opinion of mankind may have been unjustly gained, but which cannot be safely surrendered" (Jowett).

37 For tyranny as the "worst of governments" see Arist., Pol., 1289b. 38 Oriental kings: I, 55; III, 80 (four times), 82 (five times). Greek kings: V, 61

(twice); V, 92. Greek tyrants: V, 46 (twice); VI, 23 and 24; VII, 154 and 165.


398 ARTHER FERRILL, Herodotus on Tyranny

judge by our new estimate of Herodotus' attitude toward it, was perhaps a more unpopular phenomenon than historians have assumed. This should not be a surprising discovery. The popularity in fifth century Athens of the tyrannicides Harmodius und Aristogeiton, has long been known, and the introduction of ostracism early in the fifth century in order to avoid the danger of tyranny is one of the most famous elements of the Athenian constitution.

In the second place this reassessment of Herodotus' view of tyranny, if correct, raises the obvious question of the general reliability of the current interpretation of tyranny in the lyric poets and the tragedians. If scholars have been mistaken about the meaning of the word tyrannos in Herodotus, might they not also be mistaken about the use of the word in other authors ?39

Finally, if it can be shown that the attitude toward tyranny in early Greece was much less favorable than has been assumed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, then would it not be necessary for modern historians to reexamriine their overall assessment of the Age of Tyranny and its importance in Greek history? Certainly part of the argument offered by scholars in their favorable interpretation of the Age of Tyranny is that contemporary Greeks did not regard it as tyrannical. If it was regarded as a bloody and despotic age, then perhaps it was. Was tyranny really a "necessary step" in the evolution toward democracy? Or was tyranny, as the democrats of the fifth century believed, incompatible with democracy, and therefore an impediniellt in the "evolution" toward democracy?

University of Washington Arther Ferrill

39 I did not see the excellent discussion of the Greek attitude towards tyranny by W. R. Connor, "Tyrannis Polis", in John H. D'Arms and John W. Eadie, eds., Ancient and Modern: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Else (Ann Arbor, 1977), 95-109, until this paper had gone to press, and there has been no opportunity to consider Connor's per- ceptive views on Greek Tyranny in the text above (although Connor does not deal with Herodotus).


Article Contentsp. [385]p. 386p. 387p. 388p. 389p. 390p. 391p. 392p. 393p. 394p. 395p. 396p. 397p. 398

Issue Table of ContentsHistoria: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 27, H. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1978), pp. 385-512Front MatterHerodotus on Tyranny [pp. 385-398]Athenian Strategy in the Archidamian War [pp. 399-427]I. G. II 653, Demosthenes and Athenian Relations with Bosporus in the Fourth Century B.C. [pp. 428-436]Polemo II of Pontus and M. Antonius Polemo [pp. 437-448]Tacitus und der Principat [pp. 449-487]MiszellenAegean Terminologies [pp. 488-491]Les Accensi et le Total des centuries [pp. 492-495]Cicero's Reaction to the Julian Calendar (Plut., Caes. 59): January 4th (45) [pp. 496-498]An Anachronism in Claudian [pp. 498-499]

Zeitschriftenreferate [pp. 500-512]Back Matter

herodotus on tyranny

Documents