117.3gray herodous and the tyrrants

7/27/2019 117.3gray Herodous and the Tyrrants

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1173gray-herodous-and-the-tyrrants 1/29

AMERICAN

J OU R NA L O F P H IL OL OG Y

HE RO D OTU S AND IMAG ES OF TYR ANNY:

THE TYR ANTS OF CO R INTH

INTRODUCTION

This paper considers Herodotus’ presentation of the tyrants ofC orinth (3.48–53, 5.92) and some recent readings of the sam e.1 The

speech that Herodotus puts into the mouth of Socles of Corinth (5.92) is

a main source for the tyranny of C ypselus and P eriander, and a lso for

the relations of the Sparta ns with their Peloponnesian a llies and A thens,

for it seems to persuade the allies to oppose the Spartans in their desire

to reimpose tyranny on Athens by offering a negative paradigm of

tyranny.2 Yet historians agree tha t w hat Socles says about Cy pselus and

Periander is cast in the form of patterned stories of questionable value

for “ real history” and that the image of tyranny does not in all respects

meet the a ims of the persuasion.3 Socles has called tyra nny “ more unjust

1Mainly Hartog, Mir ro r ; G o uld, Herodotus ; La teiner, H istorical M ethod ; So ur -

vinou–Inwood, “ ‘Myth’ ” ; S te iner , Tyrant’s Wr it ; but a lso Vernant, “Oedipus” ; Dubois,

Sowing ; Pellizer, ‘Il forno freddo’; Erbse, Studien.2For the relations between the Spartans and their allies: Ca rtledge, Sparta 147: “ a

rudimentary formula fo r collective decision–making was put into operation a nd the ‘Pelo-

ponnesian League’ more or less properly so–called was born.”; Adshead, Politics 44–45:

“ . . . whatever the truth about Socles’ speech, the residual datum would seem to be outspo-

ken opposition by an ally for the fi rst time, sufficiently effective to block Sparta’s inten-

tion.” Caw kwell, “ Sparta and H er Allies” 374 sees this meeting as unique, but a precedent

for later developments. Strasburger, “ Herodot” explores other implications of the wider

context of the speech for contemporary a udiences who ha d experienced the Athenian E m-

pire, particularly in the light of the tyrant Hippias’ reference to the future harm that

Athens w ould do to the C orinthians (5.93.1). There is a possibility of similar implications

about the Spartans and their League. See further below.3Berve, D ie Tyrannis 14–27, 521–31 is the ba sic reference; see then A ndrew es, Greek

Tyrants 43–53; Waters, On Tyrants 13–15, 18–20; 13: “ a splendid opportunity to write aspeech incorporating some of the logoi concerning the Corinthian tyrants,” 14: “ he is re-

sponsible for the inclusion of a logos, but not at all for its contents or its alleged moral

America n Jo urnal o f P hilology 117 (1996) 361–389 ᭧ 1996 by The Johns Ho pkins University P ress



and more murderous” than anything else in the world, yet they believe

that he offers a sympathetic portrayal of the early history of Cypselus,

the founder of the dyna sty. The oracles that seem to say tha t he will bring

justice to Co rinth and the story of his survival as a babe, saved from

death only by his smile, the pity of those sent to butcher him, and his

mother’s actions, should be explained, since they do not seem appropri-

at e to a d enunciation of tyra nny. The usual explanation is that H erodo-

tus has given too f ree a rein to his liking for a good story a nd has not suc-

ceeded in making Socles say wha t he ought to be saying. “ The fairy–ta le

and the friendly oracles agree very ill with the general tendency of

H erodotus’ account, and we can b est explain their presence in his text by

supposing that they w ere already trad itional elements in the stories be-

fore his time, and tha t he took them over without quite noticing how they told against his speaker’s view of Cypselus.” 4 John G ould reads the

speech as “ narra tive as persuasion,” in which the narrative parts com-

pany with the persuasion and takes on an independent life of its own.

Socles starts at the beginning and explains how the ty ranny came t o be,

instead of proceeding to an ordered denunciation of its injustice. 5 The

general precedent for t he practice is H omeric: Phoenix’s use of the story

of Meleager to persuade A chilles to return to b att le seems to part com-

pany from the persuasion in similar wa ys (Il iad 9.527–99).6 The portrayal

of P eriander is generally agreed to serve the denunciat ion better, but

even here the stripping of the women of Corinth has struck some as

teaching”; Forrest, Emergence 110–11: “ Much of H erodotus’ account is fairy–tale, much ofthe rest of it is distorted by its context (it is told as part of a general argument against

tyranny of which Kypselos is held up, not very successfully, as a black example) . . .

Herodotus has preserved, as a decoration to his tale, a number of Delphic oracles . . .” ;

Hammond in CAH, 2d ed., 3.3:344: “ Our best source of information is a speech by a

Co rinthian, which Herodotus made up in order to include the Co rinthian tradition about

the tyrants of Corinth”; Ha rt, Herodotus 50–52;52:“ every piece of information a bout Peri-

ander is a logos, a popular tale of the type that tends to attach itself to powerful personali-

ties of the moderately recent past” ; Salmon, Wealthy Cori nth 186–95; 186: “ This folk –story

is given in a context of hostility to the tyranny . . . but all the same Cypselus is the hero” ;

190f.: “ . . . Herodotus does not emphasise the wickedness of the tyranny by contrast with

the regime it supplanted—an ob vious technique if the tradition ha d allowed sympathy for

the B acchiads” ; McGlew, Tyranny 61–74 writes most recently on the ambivalence of the

oracles concerning the tyra nny.4Andrewes, Greek Tyrants 46–47.5

G ould, H erodotus 51–53 and 64 for t his as a ha bit of the stor yteller.6G ould, H erodotus 55–56.

362 V I VI EN NE J . G R AY



anti–climactic.7 G ould believes that the narrative story of Periander and

Lycophron, which is the other main evidence for the tyrants of C orinth

(3.48–53), also drifts free of its a uthor a nd context: “ The story ha s a scale

and a power and a weight out of all proportion to its overt function as an

explana tory link in the larger narrat ive, and in this it resembles a whole

range of other Herodotean stories.” 8 Christiane Sourvinou–Inwood

finds it to be so patterned by mythic consciousness that the historical

dat a a re almost irrecoverable.9

The first aim of this paper is to offer a reading of the speech of

Socles in which the persuasion does not part company with t he narra tive,

but remains firmly tied to it. The images of tyranny in the story of C ypse-

lus, as in that of P eriander and Lycophron, which has not had the same

critical att ention, are shaped by their context. The method will be to notethe similarities and differences between their stories and other stories of

similar pattern in Herodotus.10 Comparison will illuminate the adapta-

tions that Herodotus has made to fit the pattern to the requirements of

the various contexts and more clearly d emonstrate the influence of con-

text on the images of tyra nny which they produce.

The second aim of t he paper is to emphasise the diffi culties tha t the

influence of context poses for the idea of a stereotype of tyranny in

H erodotus. There is scholarly interest in whether H erodotus presents a

systematic image of tyranny and w hether this is favourable or not. K. H.

Wat ers argued tha t H erodotus was generally objective about tyra nts and

that his use of common patterns did not produce a stereotype. H e pre-

sented the logoi of the tyrants of Corinth as he received them from his

sources, let them drift free of their context, and too k no responsibility

for t heir moral message.11 D onald Lateiner argued to the contrary that

H erodotus’ patterning of his narrative wa s designed to lead the reader to

an “ interpretat ion lurking in the text.” 12 H e compiled a ta ble of the char-

7Erbse, Studien 133–37 attacks Hart and Waters for thinking that the ending is

anti–climactic: “ D ie Zärtheit der Novelle steht im gewollten Kontrast zur späteren Ent-

wicklung der Tyrannie, besonders zum abschliessenden Skandal . . .” “ U nd doch hatte alles

so lieblich begonnen!” (136). Pellizer, “ Il forno freddo” 810 also makes a case for a climax.8G ould, 53.9Sourvinou–Inwood, “ ‘Myth’ ” 244–45 and 261–67.10Sourvinou–Inwo od do es make 3.48–53 her central concern, but she does not em-

phasise context, and her comparisons come from outside Herodotus.11

Waters, On Tyrants 13–15.12Lateiner, H istorical M ethod 166–67.

363H E R O D O TU S A ND I MA G E S O F TY R A NN Y



acteristics of eastern autocrats and the tyrants of Corinth which makes

them stereotypes of undesirable government.13 The G reek tyrant who

emerges from his ta ble is based on t he constitutional deba te (3.80): he

equa tes his will or fa ncy with the la w (5.92η1), exhibits rapacious greed

and unchecked aggression (5.92ε2, η1), fears for his own life and is jeal-

ous of others (5.92ζ2), commits a trocities (3.49.2) a nd other outrages

(3.48.2), forces his will on wo men (3.48.2, 5.92η1 and 3), confuses sex

and politics (3.48.2), executes without tr ial (3.50.1, 5.92η1, ε2, ζ1) , in-

hibits speech and tho ught (3.52.6), ba ses his rule on his own and his sub-

jects’ fea r (3.52.2, 5.92ε2), and his power depend s on one man (3.53.4).

F. Ha rtog also moved towa rd establishing an image of G reek tyranny

along the lines of the “ otherness” of eastern autocrats, crediting them

with lust for power or sex, tendencies to contravene law a nd custom, andto mutilate and mark their subjects.14 D eborah Steiner add ed to these

stereotypical characteristics the tyrants’ monopoly of secret processes,

such as writing.15 E zio P ellizer rehearsed the basics and emphasised the

horrors of attacks on the citizen body.16 G ould does not directly enter

the debate a bout the image of tyranny, but his ana lysis of the C orinthian

tyranny shows a more human face than L ateiner’s cata logue, and his

reading of H erodotus’ narra tive as drifting free of its context brings him

closer to Waters.17 He emphasises reciprocal relationships and plays

down the concept of a nalogy which would produce a stereotyped image

out of a series of common patterns: “ . . . analogical relationships—that

is, relationships derived from perceived connections between a bstrac-

tions, such as ones between the beha viours of ot herwise unconnected

‘tyrants’—are much less significant.” 18

I a m also inclined to play do wn the idea of a stereotype. H erodotus

does work with story patterns and motifs, and these are the basis of his

representation. B ut comparison shows that these vary from tyrant t o

tyrant, often as a result of their different contexts, and that the tyrants

do not share a common core. Tyrants a lso sometimes share their pat terns

13Lateiner, H istorical M ethod 172–79.14Hartog, Mir ro r 322–39, esp. 330ff. He also creates a summary of characteristics

based on the constitutional debate, 326.15Steiner, Tyrant’s Wr it 127–65 on ea stern aut ocra cy, 166–85 on G reece.16Pellizer, “ Il forno freddo” 809–11.17G ould, Herodotus 51–53 on P eriander and Lycophron. Waters, On Tyrants 9, 19

sees the same human face.18G ould, H erodotus 43.




and motifs with non–tyra nts. There is a good deal of varia tion between

patterns and even within patterns, such as that of the tyra nt’s rise to

power. Peisistrat us partly shares such a patt ern with the Median tyrant

D eioces (1.59–64, 95–101). Yet P eisistra tus has little in common with

Cy pselus, who shares part of his pattern w ith the usurper C yrus of Persia

instea d (5.92, 1.108–29).19 D eioces was a ma n of great w isdom a nd justice

who w on reputation in a t ime of social disorder because of his ability to

settle disputes, but he wa s “ in love with tyranny” (1.96).20 He realised

that the whole country looked to him for his settlements and he deliber-

ately withdrew his services in order to make them see their dependence

on him. The country relapsed into disorder, whereupon the Medes “ per-

suaded themselves to be ruled by a king” and granted D eioces a body-

guard and power which he subsequently used to compel them to buildthe pala ce of Ecb at ana (1.97–98). The justice for w hich he wa s famous

became impersonal a nd harsh, but he used no overt violence on his peo-

ple (1.100). Peisistrat us “t ook thought for” a t yranny in the midst of so-

cial disorder (1.59.3), but he relied on his military reputa tion ra ther tha n

his justice. H e secured his bodyguard through the same kind of manipu-

lation a s D eioces, but deceived the people on three separat e occasions.

The fi rst wa s the at ta ck he pretended t o ha ve suffered from his enemies.

This induced the people to give him a bodyguard with which he seized

the A cropolis (1.59.5). Second, he used t he false At hena in the chariot to

persuade t he At henians to obey his instructions and welcome him back

from exile (1.60.5: H erodo tus denounces this as t he silliest trick ever con-

ceived, emphasising the gullibility of the people: 1.60.3). Third wa s his

most cunning plan t o scatter t he Athenians before they could rally a nd

reunite a fter P allene; he did so by sending his sons to t ell the people

to go home (1.63)—instructions which they obeyed without further ado

(1.64). The common patt ern produces two images of the t yrant who se-

cures a willing obedience of his people through manipulation against a

background of social disorder with minimal violence implied, yet there

are a lso signal differences in the images. D eioces’ rise to pow er is based

on a sole instance of manipulation of his people and though he has a

19Hero dotus presents Cyrus as no less a usurper than Cypselus since he has rights to

the kingdom of the Medes only through his mother Mandane’s line, not his father’s, just as

Cypselus has a right to the power of the Bacchiads only through his mother Labda’s line.20

Flory, A rchaic Smile 120–28 sees D eioces and P eisistratus as “ Hero doteanphilosopher kings,” but mistakenly in my view. Cp. Waters, On Tyrants 21–23.




bodyguard a nd enclosed palace, his exercise of power is judicial. Pei-

sistratus’ rise is based on a series of manipulations and is confirmed by a

military victory, and his exercise of pow er is at least in the end ba sed on

mercenaries, money, and hostages. Some of these differences are clearly

due to the demands of the context and may reflect historical fact. D eio-

ces must retire into his pala ce to issue his justice, since tha t is the Media n

wa y. Peisistrat us must presumably fight at P allene. Yet they do not con-

form to the savage stereotype even in their common core, nor is that

core generally a pplied to o ther tyra nts.

Cypselus’ rise to power begins in his threatened and marginalised

infancy and culminates in his maturity with what appears to be whole-

sale civil violation and violence. Periander’s outbursts are motivated by

sinister signs from a fellow t yrant a nd a dea d wife, and t hough he manip-ulates the women whom he orders to the festival, he is then already in

power. Cy pselus shares the story of his threatened infancy with C yrus of

Persia, and to some extent with Lycophron, but Cyrus wins power from

the Medes in another military victory rat her than through an outburst of

civil violence. The manner of Periander’s rise finds its para llel among

non–tyra nnical individuals such as Lichas of Sparta (below, p. 381). In-

terestingly, H erodotus alludes to the possibility of the pattern found in

the rise of Cypselus and Cyrus within the story of Peisistratus, when

Chilon interprets a sign given to his father H ippocrates before his birth.

Chilon advises H ippocrates either not to ma rry, to divorce his current

wife, or to disown their son—warnings from signs that in the stories of

Cy pselus and C yrus lead to failed attempts to exterminate them. H ip-

pocrates, however, does not obey Chilon and Peisistratus grows up free

of the kind of persecution that regularly follows in other versions of this

motif (1.59.2). The reasons for the different images of D eioces and P ei-

sistratus, on the one hand, and C ypselus and C yrus on the other, merit

fuller explanat ion on another occasion, but H erodotus is creating their

images out of a va riety of patterns that do not conform in their details or

even in their outlines to any one stereotype. H e may ha ve received them

from his sources or they may represent his own view or even the facts,

but an o verall stereotype is hard t o fi nd, except in the general notion of a

usurpation of pow er, and even a selection of stereotyped qualities is dif-

ficult to prove. The evidence of the Corinthian tyra nts confirms that va ri-

ety of patterns is a result of context.




RE ADING THE IMAG E OF CYPSELUS

The stories of the usurpation by Cypselus of the power of his clan,

the Ba cchiads, the usurpation by Cyrus the G reat of the power of his

Median grandfather Astyages, and the a ttempted usurpation by Lyco-

phron of the power of his father Periander show a common pattern and

set of motifs tha t include the problematic ora cles or other kinds of w arn-

ings abo ut the usurper and the pity for his infancy and b oyhood t hat a l-

lows him to esca pe his persecutors. These stories represent one version

of the pat terned rise to power of a usurper, but demonstrate differences

as w ell. Their comparison permits a more informed reading of their mo-

tifs.

Amphion the B acchiad marries his daughter La bda t o a man out ofthe clan called Eetion beca use she is lame and no –one wa nts her. The

B acchiads learn of o racles that point to their overthrow by her son. The

first tells E etion that La bda w ill give birth to a boulder that w ill “ fall on

monarchic men and δικαισει Corinth” (5.92β2). The B acchiads realize

that it confirms an earlier oracle about the birth of a strong flesh–

devouring lion from an ea gle in the rocks, the meaning of which had

been previously unclear (σηµον . . . τκµαρτον). In as much as the

two oracles “sing in harmony,” they send ten men to murder the child

(5.92γ2–4). La bda b elieves that t hey have come to see her baby out of

“ kindly feeling for his fat her” and gives the child to t he man chosen by

them to strike the blow, but the baby “ by some divine chance” smiles up

at him. “ Pity kept him back when he saw this.” The first B acchiad hands

the baby on to the second and the second to the third until they retire

in confusion in order to reaf firm t heir resolve. Since they cannot do t he

deed individually, they now hope to accomplish it as a group. Labda

overhears them and intervenes, concealing Cypselus in a place that gave

no signs at all (φρασττατν)—in a container (5.92δ). The Ba cchiads

return determined to kill, but cannot find C ypselus. H e grows up to re-

ceive a double–edged ora cle that says that he and his sons will rule, but

not his grandsons. H is adult career is summarised in a f ew bruta l lines:

“ H e exiled many of the C orinthians, deprived many of their possessions,

and many more of their lives.” H is onslaught wa s apparently not re-

stricted to the B acchiads.

H erodo tus applies a similar pa ttern to C yrus of P ersia (1.107–29).21

G randfa ther Astya ges and his kinsman H arpagus (109.3) are t he equiva-

21Long, Repetition 126–75 gives a det ailed t reat ment o f this story.




lent of the persecuting Ba cchiads. Cy rus is the equivalent of C ypselus.

Astya ges’ dreams and t he Magi’s interpretation of them are t he equiva-

lent of t he B acchiad interpretation of the ora cles abo ut C ypselus (107–

8.2). The first drea m causes Astyages to marry his daughter out o f the

royal clan to a Persian, an inferior who is the equivalent of E etion. The

second makes him send H arpa gus to kill their child. The Media n/P ersian

image of the tyrant is the vine and the flood, whereas the G reek image is

the lion and the boulder. H arpagus fails in his task as does the first B ac-

chiad, and he goes home in tears which represent the pity of the first

B acchiad (109.1), respecting the bonds of kinship and fea ring the reper-

cussions the slaughter might la ter provoke from a n old king without an

heir and his daughter (109.3–4). H e hands him on to a herd sman to kill,

but he in turn spares the child when his wife cries too, having just givenbirth to her ow n dead infant (112.1). The passing of Cy pselus from the

first B acchiad to the second and third in turn finds its para llel in the wa y

H arpagus passes on the child to the herdsman, and the herdsman to his

wife (110ff.). Like La bda this woman intervenes to save t he child, putting

her stillborn infant into his cradle (γγο, the equivalent of C ypselus’

container: 113.1), and brings him up in the mountains of Media, where

she and her husband live. This remote place ha s affi nities with t he rocks

of P etra in w hich Cy pselus presumably grows up. We hear nothing of

Cypselus from infancy to a dulthood. In the case of Cyrus, however, this

gap is filled (114–16). Though A stya ges recognises Cyrus w hen C yrus is

brought before him for beha ving like a king in a children’s game, he lets

him live because the Magi interpret the game incorrectly as the prema-

ture fulfi lment of his destiny (120–21). C yrus returns to his real mother

in Persia a nd grows up to conquer and enslave the Medes, as Cy pselus

grew up to subject the Corinthians, though in a different w ay (123–

29). The equivalent of t he oracle that unleashed the mat ure identity of

Cypselus is the sign sent by his kinsman Harpagus in the hare’s belly.

Cy rus conquers a king in battle w ho is capable of killing and cooking a

man’s son and serving him up for dinner, but exhibits such thirst for

blood himself that he had his fill even in death—with his head in a

bucket of blood.

The story of Periander’s persecution of his son Lycophron has a

similar pattern a nd exhibits the same motif o f pity—it tells of a challenge

to the tyra nnical authority o f a fa ther by his son and t he usurpation that

almost occurred (3.48–53).22

The story again concerns three generations

22Andrewes, Greek Tyrants 52: “ the fringes of domestic saga, how he murdered his

wife and quarrelled with his sons, where fact and fiction are hard to distinguish and




and a n offended female, who in this case is Periander’s wife Melissa, the

daughter of Procles the tyrant of Epidaurus and mother of Lycophron,

the future tyrant of C orinth. Periander does not just cast her out as in

other stories, but kills her, thus creating a threat from her son Lyco-

phron, who champions her cause. H e learns of the offence by decipher-

ing a question from his grandfather P rocles, who ha d invited his grand-

sons to his court and asked them whether they knew who killed their

mother (3.50.1–3). The elder son do es not see the question as a sign and

therefore does not know how to interpret it (“t he elder made no a ccount

of the word” ). The younger son, however, sees it as a sign and seizes its

meaning, and fro m that time refuses to speak to his fat her (3.50.3). Peri-

ander then ha s to search for the sign and its meaning more actively tha n

the persecuting relatives do in the Cypselus and C yrus stories. H e re-peatedly a sks the elder boy wha t his grandfather had said, but the boy

replies only that he w as friendly, not remembering what had b een said

since it had meant nothing to him. Periander persists and eventually

makes the boy remember the words, whose meaning he immediately

recognises (3.51.1–2), as he recognised the signs of Thrasybulus and

Melissa in Socles’ narrative (5.92ζ–η). H e banishes his younger son and

tells the C orinthians not to receive him into their households, but they

react a s Ha rpagus did when he wa s told to kill Cyrus—fearing Periander

but fea ring equally to ca use the death of his heir (3.51.3). Periander fi -

nally has to pass a law in Corinth that none should receive or speak to

Lycophron, but he feels pity for t he relative he is persecuting—one will

recall the B acchiads’ compassion—when he sees him lying under rough

shelter, unwashed and hungry (οκτιρε 3.52.3). P eriander a dvises him not

to continue to compete in anger a gainst the man he should oppose least,

or to show spleen against those who bore him and were better and

stronger (ντιστατων τε κα ργ χρεµενο τν σε κιστα χρν. . . το τοκα κα το κρσσονα τεθυµσθαι 3.52.4–5). P erian-

der expresses his hope that he has learned from his suffering that it is

better to be envied tha n pitied (µαθν σω φθονεσθαι κρσσον στ

folk–tale certainly has some part.” Sourvinou–Inwood (“ ‘Myth’ ” ) explains the pattern be-

hind the story as an initiation rite. The problems in her interpretation a re that she does not

compare this story with others in Hero dotus, but with those from other sources, so that the

comparisons of the patterns and motifs are less persuasively established. In fact, compari-

son of details and motifs from other stories in Herodotus suggest interpretations other

than that of initiation, as I shall show.Moreover, Sourvinou–Inwood a ttempts to generalisethe picture of G reek tyrants without considering the differences. She is of course right in

reading the story as a myth of father –son conflict, but this is a very general and obvious

theme.




οκτρεσθαι 3.52.5)—the proverb ial w isdom.23 H e continues his persecu-

tion, however, as the B acchiads did in different circumstances, when his

son insolently tells him that he was convicted of breaking his own law,

which forbade a ny communication with him. This makes Periander de-

cide that his son harbours an “ unmanageab le and unconquerab le

wrong” (3.52.6). He sends him awa y to C orcyra, as Astyages sent Cyrus

aw ay to P ersia, and C ypselus grew up in Petra. Then as he feels old age

descending, and rea lizes that his elder son is too dull of wit to ta ke on the

tyra nny, Periander sends heralds to Lycophron asking him to return, but

his pleas are ignored. H e sends his daughter (the intervening woma n) to

persuade him to come home to t ake up the ty ranny (3.53.3–4). Lyco-

phron ignores her too, agreeing to return only on condition that his fa-

ther quit C orinth and move to Corcyra. In fear of having Periander astyra nt, the Corcyreans kill Lycophron, thus depriving the household of

its only suitab le heir.

These three stories have common patt erns, but comparison shows

that t heir images of tyra nny are ada pted to their context. The story of

Lycophron focuses on the household of P eriander, and pa rticularly on

the loss of his only suitable heir. The general context o f the story is the

subsequent at tack on Samos by the Corinthians, the result of a grudge

dat ing from the time when the Sa mians intercepted and rescued the sons

of the Corcyreans whom Periander sent to Alyattes to be castrated

(3.48.1–2) and their dislike of the Corcyreans since the time of their

founda tion (3.49.1). The att empted castra tion is the specifi c context for

the story of Lycophron. Periander had intended it as an act of revenge

designed to d esolate the houses of the C orcyreans as they desolated his

own, by ending their bloodline’s reproductive capacity as they ended his

when they killed his only suitable male heir in his old a ge. Sourvinou–

Inwood (“ ‘Myth’ ” 250) counts the castration as part of the recreation of

an initiation rite that she sees as central to the story, but the other more

physical meaning of castration, which is the end of the genetic line, is a

more appropriate reading.24

23Pindar Pythian I.85: λλ’ µω, κρσσων γρ οκτιρµο φθνο, µ παρει καλ.24Periander shares his desire for revenge with the G reek from Pedasus, Hermo -

timus, who castrates the whole family of Panionios, who had castrat ed him (8.104–6). The

end of the bloodline is what castrat ion means in the story of Hermot imus, and this con-firming evidence from Herodotus seems stronger to me than any general connexion with

loss of manhoo d, initiation rites, or other examples from sources outside Herodotus.




H erodotus for that reason then adapts the common pat tern to em-

phasise the idea o f the household a nd succession. H e creates a family of

father and mother, two sons and a da ughter, and explores the dynamics

of the fa mily, particularly t he succession, which involves the competition

between fa ther and son. H e emphasises the dull wits of the elder brother,

which prevent him from inheriting the house, and the sister’s sex, which

leaves Lycophron a s the only suita ble heir. H e emphasises Lycophron’s

banishment from his own a nd all other households in Corinth, and the

futile attempts to recall him. The concept o f the desolate household is

present throughout, but pa rticularly in the sister’s appeal (3.53.3–4). The

other versions of the pattern have no need for such ada ptation, even

though they have a capacity for it. H erodotus refers in embryo to the

motif of the old man without an heir in the story of Astyages, for exam-ple, when H arpa gus explicitly is afraid to kill the only male heir of a n

aged king in case he or his d aughter t ake subsequent revenge (1.109.3),

but it is not d eveloped because the context does not req uire it.25

The demands of t he context also produce a ra nge of tyra nnical im-

ages within the household of P eriander. Lycophron and his brother are

very different in their a bility t o recognise and decipher signs, yet bot h

are sons of a ty rant. The contrast betw een Periander and Lycophron is

far more importa nt to Herod otus than any stereotype, for the unrelent-

ing opposition of the son highlights the greater ca pacity of the fa ther for

human feeling. The fat her relents, even to the extent o f tra nsgressing his

own law, when he sees his son in distress, whereas the son does not relent

when he sees the distress of his fat her’s old a ge, and he ignores the very

human pleas of his sister. The range of image would be even wider if the

woma n were a lso considered tyra nnical, and t here is evidence in Thu-

cydides that women identified w ith their tyrannical family.26 Ha rtog and

Lateiner consider Periander’s attempted castration typically tyrannical,

but this is hard to justify, since Herodo tus sees it a s part of a sequence of

revenge and puts the initial blame squarely on the Corcyreans, as he

does also in the case of Pa nionios, who fi rst castrated H ermotimus.27

25As in the embryonic version of the rise of C ypselus inside the story of P eisistratus.26Thuc. 6.59.3.27Hartog, Mir ro r 333. La teiner in his catalogue chooses from this story only what

fit s the stereotype for P eriander. It is not q uite right to cite 3.49.2 as evidence that the

tyrant commits atasthala, when it is the Corcyreans who are credited with this, and notquite fair to list 3.48.2 as evidence of “o ther outrages” when it is merely a repetition of the

sentence at 49.2. Wate rs points to this (On Tyrants 19). Executing subjects without trial is




When he repeats his framing statement tha t P eriander son of C ypselus

sent aw ay the three hundred sons for castrat ion (3.49.2 cp. 48.2), he ad ds

τιµωρεµενο, “ for the Corcyreans made the first move against him in

outrageous deeds,” referring forward to their murder of Lycophron

(49.2). H erodo tus seems to consider elsewhere tha t the person who initi-

ates wrong in other passages bears the primary responsibility.28 Mutila-

tion in revenge for ending the bloodline is in any case not restricted to

tyra nts, as the story of H ermotimus shows. H erodotus is careful to show

that the Co rinthians would not ha ve taken up the cudgels aga inst those

who thw arted P eriander after his death if they did not have good reasons

of their own for hating Corcyra and the Samians who rescued the boys,

which suggests that Periander w as fa r from popular. Yet he passes up the

opportunity t o refer directly to the o racle which predicted the fall of thehouse in Lycophron’s generation and might have created a more divine

pattern of rise and fa ll.

The persecution of heirs by their families over three generations

characterises the tyrants of C orinth, but the story of Cypselus is adapted

to very different circumstances from the story of Lycophron. Socles

seeks to prove that t yranny is “mo re murderous and more unjust” than

anything else in the wo rld. The image in this case is the product of

rhetoric designed to persuade the d rama tic audience. The meaning of

murderous is obvious, but the meaning of unjust can be deba ted. We

think of law –breaking, but it is closely linked with the idea of murder

and ca n extend beyond mere law –breaking to behaviour that knows no

law, and is pure aggression. This is the wa y it seems to be understood in

the story. The first element in the common pattern shared w ith Cy rus is

the wa rning—in this case two ora cles rather tha n dreams. Socles tells us

that the oracles described C ypselus as a “ boulder from a rocky place”

perhaps not the best way to describe the bare mentio n of the killing of his wife (3.50.1).

Periander’s proclamatio n that no–one speak to his son (3.52.6) is not q uite evidence that

Periander inhibits speech and thought (cp. 3.80.5), and ma y even find justification in Athe-

nian law (see below n. 38). The idea tha t rule is based on his own and his subjects’ fear do es

not ta ke into account that this fear is inspired by the law (3.52.2), which seems a q uite

proper state of aff airs. The Spartans “ fear the law as a master” too (7.104.4). The evidence

for the view that power depends on one man, not on institutions, is taken from a speech de-

livered by Periander’s daughter, which has its own agenda and in any case does not quite

say this (3.53.4). It rather says that tyranny ha s many lovers, which is an expansion of

Herodotus’ common explanation of how tyranny arises—that men fall in love with it(D eioces, etc.). Lycophron gives us more and less than Lateiner’s stereotype.

28G ould, H erodotus 82–85.




and a “ flesh–devouring lion.” The images are far more actively aggres-

sive than the vine and the flood that w as Cyrus, i.e., the first adaptation

of the common pat tern to the context. There has been a debate a bout

the a pparently favourable na ture of the o racles. This seems to me mis-

guided. The lion is an unmistakeable H omeric reference to bloodthirst

of a very aggressive sort, particularly in the wa y it descends wholesale on

flocks and herds.29 Cy pselus descends on the C orinthians in this wa y, too.

Some believe that it strikes discord w ith his infancy, but ot her represen-

ta tions of the lion make it peculiarly appropriate for a sweet child w ho

will grow up to become a savage tyra nt. Cy pselus takes on his mature

tyra nnical identity as surely a s the cub “ held in arms like a nursling

child” takes on the adult savagery of the grown lion in Agamemnon,

slaughtering the flocks and filling the house with b lood.30 The boulder isjust as appropriate an image of sa vagery. H omer describes Hector’s on-

slaught in Il iad 13.137 as that of a boulder coming down from a rocky

place: λοοιτρχο π πτρη.31 The fatal behaviour of this rolling

piece of murder is like that of the lion, whom H omer also calls λο-φρων. H ector’s key action a s boulder is killing (145). H omer’s phrase

could indeed have generated some of the detail of the story of Cypse-

lus—for example, the designation of his hometown a s Petra (δµου µνν κ Πτρη), which means ‘the rock’.32 The rocky place from which

the fat al boulder rolls becomes in our story the real town of P etra fro m

which Cy pselus rolls dow n as a boulder on mona rchic men. The common

motif whereby the usurper grows up outside the civilised world of the

city and the court is here also particularly adapted to the harshness of

the image.33 B oth lions and b oulders are at home in such rocky places.

Eetion’s difficulty in fathering a child from Labda or any other woman

29See examples in I l iad 15.592–93, 630–36.30Aesch. A g. 717–36 is the locus classicus of the growth of savagery: the lion cub,

mild and sweet in its infancy, “ revealed the nature of its parents” in its maturity.31Janko, The Iliad, loc.cit.32No such connexion has been previously made betw een the H omeric lines and the

story. Ho wever, Sourvinou–Inwo od believes facts like these are mythically generated, and

Ho mer can be counted mythic for these purposes.33Sourvinou–Inwood, “ ‘Myth’ ” 259–60 sees the marginal exclusion of the youth in

the stories as part of the initiation rite preliminary to the ta keover by the son of the father’s

central place. This need not contradict my present argument, but it is important to not e

that it is not the father who ma rginalises Cypselus here, but the Ba cchiads who ma rginalisehis mother by marrying her to a n already ma rginalised husband. This makes the initiation

rite only one explanat ion of marginality, as also in the case of castration (see above).




(5.92β2) and La bda ’s deformity may a lso find t heir appropriate home on

a ba rren outcrop.34 Cy rus was mothered by one who could not give birth

to a live child either, and w ho lived in the remote mountains of Media

aw ay from the pla in (1.110.1–2). There a re ot her more imaginative possi-

bilities for Cypselus. H ector as boulder runs out of violence when he

comes to the plain, and this could have generated the idea of the ora cle

that declared that the line of C ypselus will also run out of steam when he

comes from P etra t o the plain of Corinth, that he and his sons will rule,

but not the sons of his sons. The ab sence from the career of C ypselus of

any period of childhood or youth is a more certain variation on t he story

of C yrus. H is savage maturity seems to come upon him as suddenly as

the lion’s or the bo ulder’s onslaught. H erodotus does not count all tyra n-

nies so murderous in their onslaught. The image of the vine and t he floo dimplies no such ferocious menace in C yrus, nor is there any such impli-

cation in the signs for Lycophron or P eisistratus. The ancestry of his fa-

ther Eetion may also confirm the savagery latent in the bloodline of

Cy pselus. H e is descended from the La pith Caeneus (5.92β1) whose

name can be rea d as the ‘slaughterer’ (κανειν).35 The context of Socles’

speech rules the ima ge.

There rema ins the problem of the prediction o f justice in the ora cle

abo ut the boulder. O racles are naturally allusive and ambiguous, liable

to b e misinterpreted by the unwary. The description of the boulder as

one which will fall on monarch men and the expression δικαισει δΚρινθον could be interpreted as bringing justice to Corinth in a good

sense, but the language suggests that this boulder will punish or pass

judgement on Corinth without the usual connotations of justice (LSJ

III.1). The translation “lay claim to Corinth” or “ demand (to have) Cor-

inth as a right” with the infinitive could be quite without such connota-

t ions: LSJ s.v. II especially Thuc. 5.26.2: οχ ρθ. S ignificantly, He-

rodotus uses this verb with the direct object construction elsewhere in

respect of people subjected to an imperfect kind of justice by tyrants,

which can be too harsh, lacking in compassion, or arbitrary. D eioces of

Media, who is explicitly called a tyra nt, passes judgement on the insolent

immediately after establishing his tyra nny, but his justice is harsh and de-

34G arland, Eye 98. Vernant, “ Oedipus,” well aware of the influence of old myth on

images of tyranny, perhaps pushes the imagery of lameness too far in pursuing the lame

line of Labda dow n through Cypselus and Periander to Lycophron; cp. B remmer, “ G reekOedipus C omplex.”

35D elcourt, “ Légende” 131–44 and passim.




livered in writing from his palace without human conta ct and he employs

spies throughout the land (1.100.1: πε δ τατα διεκσµησε κα κρτυνε ωυτν τ τυραννδι, ν τ δκαιον φυλσσων χαλεπ. κα τ τε δκα γρφοντε σω παρ’ κενον σπµπεσκον, κα κενοδιακρνων τ εσφεροµνα κπµπεσκε . . . ε τινα πυνθνοιτο βρ-ζοντα τοτον κω µεταπµψαιτο κατ’ ξην κστου δικµατο δι-καευ. κα ο κατσκοποι τε κα κατκοοι σαν ν πσαν τν χρηντ ρχε).36 Cambyses also passes judgement on the Egyptian priests in

this language in his usual arb itrary wa y (3.29.3). Cy pselus’ a tta ck on the

Co rinthians seems to be a similar sort of judgement, for the ora cle pre-

dicts two a cts of aggression, the first against the B acchiads, the second

aga inst the C orinthians in general. Though he may have been right to

at tack the former (but see below), he had no justification to att ack thelatter.37

Herodotus confirms that Cypselus was no agent of real justice in

his later statement that wrong (κακν) was fated to be born from the

seed of Eetion (5.92δ1). Periander sees the same “ unmanageable and

unconquerable wrong” (κακν . . . πορον . . . κα νκητον 3.52.6) in

Lycophron when he rejects his compassion. H is wro ng indeed consists of

his rejection of compassion in favour o f strict law, and this is confirmed

when he also rejects his sister’s request not to cure one wrong with an-

other and refuses to follow her para digm of those who put more merciful

feelings before justice (µ τ κακ τ κακν . πολλο τν δικαων τπιεικστερα προτιθεσι ). Lycophron’s double rejection of his fat her’s

pity and his sister’s pleas underlines the harshness and lack of compas-

sion in his commitment to justice. H erodotus has a lready exemplified the

correct para digm in Periander, when he has him pass the law tha t fore-

bad e any communication with his son, then transgress it in order to ex-

press his own softer feelings for him.38 Justice or judgement without

compassion, humanity, or justificat ion is then characteristic of C ypselus’

36La teiner has difficulty fitting D eioces to his unfavourable stereotype (H istorical M ethod 171). Pace Flory, A rchaic Smile 120–28 who says that Hero dotus produces a com-

pletely favoura ble impression.37McG lew, Tyranny 63–74 believes that the oracles mark Cypselus as a bringer of

justice, both welcomed and fea red but there is nothing in him that the Corinthians can wel-

come.38Harrison, The L aw of Athens 75 n. 2 and 75–77 indicates that the A thenian fa ther

was w ithin his rights to do this. The technical term for his action ποκηρττειν is close toHerodotus’ κρυγµα. Xenophon H.G. 1.7.35 describes how Callixeinus incurred this pen-

alty fro m his citizens even without the law.




treat ment of the Corinthians, D eioces’ treatment of ‘insolence’ among

his population, Ca mbyses’ treatment of the priests, and Lycophron’s

treat ment of his fat her. B ut the stereotype is broken when we come to

Periander—precisely because he is needed as a contrast to his son—

though in his other story the enormities he commits to recover a for-

eigner’s deposit ma y imply excessive justice or injustice.39

The next part of t he story tha t is particularly developed w ithin the

common pattern is the failure of the B acchiads to kill their ba by relative,

and t his highlights C ypselus’ lack of compassion. The substitution of

banishment for killing in the story of Lycophron represents that story’s

own a dapta tion to the theme of revenge and the desolate household, be-

cause the heir must eventually be killed by the C orcyreans. The B ac-

chiad failure is shared by the persecuting relatives in the story of Cyrus,but that failure is a matt er of deliberat e decision not to kill, which is

ada pted to the theme of the disobedience of Ha rpagus, to which the

usurper story is married. The B acchiads on the ot her hand f ail to kill the

child in spite of their desire to do so. There is no doubt that they a re mur-

derous in their intention (θλοντε διαφθεραι . . . ποκτενοντε τπαιδον . . . προσουδσαι . . .), but their bloodthirsty streak fails them as

individuals when the baby smiles up at ea ch of them in turn, and it ta kes

the full ten of them to recover enough aggression to resolve to do the

deed together as a group (οκτ τι σχει ποκτεναι . . . οδεν βου-λοµνου διεργσασθαι . . . πντα το φνου µετσχειν . . .). This ada p-

tation is designed to prove Socles’ main contention that tyranny was

“ more murderous and more unjust” than a ny other form of government,

for the murderous instinct of the tyrant proves far stronger than the

murderous intention of t he oligarchs. This is why he calls the B acchiads

oligarchic, the political type next in line to tyra nny. They are a ble to im-

plement their murderous intentions on a mere child only as a group,

whereas C ypselus worked his alone on the w hole citizen body. They are

then foiled by a mere woman, who hides their victim where they are un-

able to find it for a ll their searching. We might rightly conclude tha t even

murderous oligarchs are less murderous as individuals than tyra nts. The

39Periander’s intentions regarding the deposit are unclear. Hero dotus 6.86 tells sto-

ries that associate justice with such deposits, and if P eriander wa s trying to find the deposit

in order to restore it to its rightful owner, then he would be going to abnorma l lengths to

restore it. He could of course be trying to steal it, in which case the reverse of justice ap-plies.




divine smile that protects this baby tyrant–to–be should give no cause

for concern; it ada pts a convention from another pattern of the rise of

tyra nny. The smile is like the river tha t mira culously rises up to prot ect

Perdiccas, the tyrant–to–be of Macedonia.40

The motif of pity inducing hesitation t o murder a potential tyra nt

has the drama tic effect of holding the persecution in suspense. It ha s

been interpreted a s favoura ble to Cy pselus because it has been thought

exceptional in an image of tyra nny. The comparison of t he stories shows

that, far from being exceptional, it is a regular feature which confirms

the tyrannical identity of the recipients of pity rather than denying it.

This is not to say, however, that it is part of a general stereotype—only a

stereotype within this particular pattern. Neither Peisistrat us nor D eio-

ces are the ob jects of pity. The motif contra sts the humanity of the fa milymembers who persecute the potential tyrant, with the latter’s own lack

of humanity. La bda expects the B acchiads have come out of φιλοφρο-σνη and t hey confirm this by showing pity, but there is no such return

from the baby they spare. Procles φιλοφρονετο towa rd his grandsons.

Periander shows the same compassion tow ard his son, but he has no such

return either. Yet there are ada ptations even in the use of t his motif. The

pity of the B acchiads is used to point to the more murderous nat ure of

tyra nny, which is the central theme. P eriander’s pity is part o f a para digm

of fa mily beha viour that serves the theme of the household.

READ ING THE IMAGES OF PERIANDER

Socles tells two stories of similar type about Periander (5.92ζ–η).

Periander was at first milder than his father, but he “ kept company with

Thrasybulus the tyra nt of Miletus through means of messengers” and be-

came much more murderous (µιαιφοντερο). The two stories explain

the onset of his violence as the result of his decipherment of signs, a mo-

tif he shares with the Ba cchiads, who are not usurping tyrants, rather

than with his fat her Cypselus, who is. Periander sent a herald to Thra-

sybulus to fi nd out how b est to secure his stat e. Thrasybulus led the her-

ald through the field destroying the highest heads of gra in, saying noth-

ing about the question of government but talking about other matters.

“ When the herald came back to C orinth, Periander was anxious to fi nd

40H dt. 8.137–38.




out the a dvice, but the herald said that Thrasybulus gave him no ad vice,

that he wa s amazed at him, at the nature of the man he had sent him to,

how careless and wantonly destructive of his own property he was,

telling him what he had seen at t he side of Thrasybulus. Periander, per-

ceiving what ha d been done, grasping the point that Thrasybulus wa s ad-

vising him to slaughter the chief men in the city, thereupon revea led all

wrong t o his citizens.” Thrasybulus offered a dvice in a symbolic display

of a ction. The herald did not recognise it as symbolic, for though he re-

ported the action, he at fi rst denied tha t Thrasybulus had given him any

advice, just as P eriander’s elder son could not see the message in the

symbolic speech of his grandfat her. Periander recognises the action as

symbolic as soon as the ta le is told, as he and his son both do in the other

story, and a s the Ba cchiads do to o when they secure the second oracle.H erodotus takes a page to explain these origins of the terror. H e then

describes the terror in one sentence, before proceeding to the stripping

of the w omen and the burning of their clothes.41 Periander sent heralds

to the oracle of the dead at Thesprotoi on Acheron to find the where-

abo uts of a deposit of treasure that belonged to a foreigner. H is dead

wife Melissa appeared but refused to reveal its whereabouts and said

that she was cold, since her funeral clothing had not been burned with

her. The proof of the truth of what she said w as her reference to the

loaves that P eriander put in a cold oven. Periander believed what the

heralds reported back since she was the o nly person w ho knew tha t he

had lain with her after her deat h when she was cold in that sense. H e

took her reference to the loaves as a “ trusted symbol” (πιστν συµβ-λαιον), by w hich is meant here the practice of friends breaking a coin in

half, for example, so that they can always recognise each other by the

sign of the perfectly joined coin.42 Periander “ in a single day” then

stripped all the women of Corinth indiscriminately and burned their

clothes to ma ke Melissa w arm. H e sent a second time to her and she re-

vealed the wherea bouts of the t reasure. There is aga in that intelligence

of tyra nts over the heads of the heralds. Melissa wa s the daughter and

wife of actua l tyrants and mother of a pot ential one.

Socles is adapting both these stories as he adapted the story of

41This holocaust is traced by some to an a ctual practice in Corinthian society, Ads-

head, Politics 42 n. 148. Sourvinou–Inwoo d’s methodology would certainly not allow this!42

Steiner, Tyrant’s Wr it 30–31, 42 ana lyses this concept in which one pa rtner can notoperate without the other.




Cy pselus. Thrasybulus’ dumb show conveys the ba sic image of the tyr-

anny of P eriander, just as the oracles conveyed the basic image of the

tyra nny of C ypselus. The image is of the wa nton wa ste of his own re-

sources (κολοων ρριπτε . . . διφθειρε . . . παραπλγ τε κα τν αυ-τν σινµωρον . . . φονεειν . . .). Periander wastes the people in his

own t own a s Thrasybulus wa sted the corn in his own fields. There is

more waste of grain in the loaves of bread that Periander put into Me-

lissa’s cold oven—destined never to rise. H e wa stes his own seed in this

necrophiliac enterprise, as the seed of others wa s wa sted in his purge of

the men.43 The image of wasted seed produces a connexion with the

story of Cypselus and a contrast with it too. Labda and E etion had trou-

ble conceiving their son (5.92β2). Yet the single seed granted by D elphi

gave rise to C ypselus from barren rocks and barren parents, and fa r frombeing put into a cold oven, wa s protected in the κυψλη, another con-

tainer which should probably be identified as a receptacle for storing

grain (the contemporary meaning of the word ) and is far more likely to

be a suita ble hiding–place in the house of La bda than a bee–hive (which

seems to be the other lat er meaning).44 Periander’s images of wa ste have

brought the reader dow n from the barren rocks of Petra to the luxuriant

plain of C orinth, as C yrus came down from the mountains of Media to

the plain, but the seed once so successfully nurtured in that poorer land-

scape is now b eing wasted in a richer one. The stripping of the women

and the burning of their clothing has caused trouble to t hose who cannot

see anything evidently murderous abo ut it, but it is a fi ne example of

sudden aggressive onslaught, as well as extravaga nt wa ste of resources.

Periander in one day orders the women of Co rinth to dress for a festival,

strips them and burns their festival clothing—to please a single dead

wife who because of his actions had not the w armth of her own, in order

to recover a treasure. The indiscriminate onslaught on wo men both free

and unfree may recall the indiscriminate attack of the lion and suggest

that Periander is now going further tha n the selective waste of the high-

est head s by Thrasybulus. The stripping might be a ha rvesting metaphor,

which would have him strip and burn his entire harvest. H is waste of re-

sources rather t han his sexual excess, impiety or onslaught a gainst citi-

zens certainly seems to be the central characterisation because it is in

43D ubois, Sowing 111–13 also read s the image ry in this w ay, but she do es not co nnect

this with the rest of the story of P eriander or the story o f C ypselus.44LSJ s.v. I , Ar. Pax 631 versus Plutarch and other later authors.




keeping with the ima ge of Thrasybulus.45 G rain, textiles, and manpower

are central to the a ncient G reek domestic economy and t hey are all

spoiled in this story. A more a mbitious reading might detect the invasion

of the plain by the hills, the centre by the margins, with the accompany-

ing agricultural implicat ions. The tyrants of Co rinth laid claim to and

then laid wa ste to the resources of the people of the plain. Cy rus also

comes from mountain to plain and poverty to wea lth, but the theme of

resources is developed in another wa y (1.126). P eisistra tus might be an-

other va riant on this in his association w ith the hills and return from ex-

ile, but there is again no waste.

It is important to distinguish the special characteristics of the im-

ages of tyranny from ot hers, and this involves comparison of a ra nge of

other common patterns in which tyrants are not the central figures. Thedecipherment story is an example. D eborah St einer has a rgued for a link

between t he secret a nd private processes of w riting and t he political pro-

cesses and outcomes of autocra tic systems of government, that the auto-

crat monopolises information and regulates its transmission through

confidential media. She extends her thesis abo ut writing to other kinds

of signs, such as the bonfires that C lytaemnestra interprets in A gamemnon.46 C lytaemnestra is sole possessor of t he knowledge of their mean-

ing as fa r a s the uncomprehending chorus is concerned, but she is hand

in glove with A gamemnon, describing her communication w ith him as a

‘token’ and a shared ‘symbol’ (σµβολν line 315). “ To w rite [and other

symbolic communication should be added to this] in the landscape of

H erodotus and other contemporary authors, is to enter the world of the

tyrant.” 47 We could apply the thesis to the stories of the t yrants of Co r-

inth and a gree that Lycophron and P eriander in their stories are expert

45Dubois, Sowing 115 sees only a sexual element in the stripping of the women, par-

allel to the stripping of Melissa befo re the necrophilia, and this may be va lid. The empha-

sis, however, on the waste of resources seems to me a stronger theme.H erodotus makes no

reference to subsequent sexual activity on Periander’s part, whereas the burning of the

clothes is a clear reference to waste. It is also difficult to fi nd an emphasis on impiety in the

details of the story, though it may be implied in his desecration of a festival. Pellizer, “ Il

forno fred do” 810–11 emphasises the wholesale atta ck on the female population, presum-

ably to pa rallel the earlier atta ck on the male, but this again fails to explain the precise de-

tail of the stripping and burning of the festival clothing. Waste seems evident. Cp. also Ver-

nant , “ Oedipus” 30.46

Steiner, Tyrant’s Wr it 169–70.47Steiner, Tyrant’s Wr it 128.




interpreters of secret signs.48 Lycophron’s ability is not part of a n initia-

tion rite, as Sourvinou–Inwood (“ ‘Myth’ ” 255) would have it, but it is

the reason w hy P eriander eventually identifies him as his successor, dis-

missing the elder son as slow –witt ed (3.53.1). P eriand er’s symbolic com-

munications with Thrasybulus and Melissa match those of Clytaem-

nestra a nd Agamemnon, right down to their shared σµβολν. We could

even say that Socles’ public opposition to the Spartans’ proposal ex-

plains his presentation of the Cypselid tyranny in terms of their secret

processes. Steiner notes that H erodotus and other fifth –century writers

present the clash between tyra nts and proto–democrat s as between writ-

ers/secret signers and public speakers.49

Yet the decipherment of signs is by no means unique to tyra nts, nor

are the patterns of their decipherment. The Ba cchiads are not tyra ntsbut they successfully decipher the ora cles. Lichas the Spartia te is no

tyra nt either, but he is able to interpret an ora cle in order to facilitate the

rise of the Spartans to domination of the P eloponnese, just as Periander

interprets the signs of Thrasyboulos and Melissa before the outbreak of

his violence. Lichas matched the activities at a meta l–working forge to

the riddle of t he ora cle that promised the Sparta ns control of Tegea if

they brought home the bones of O restes (1.67–68). The Spart ans here

seek what tyra nts in the lat er stories will seek—access to buried infor-

mat ion, and t hey seek it in the language of tho se stories (1.67.3 τν χ-ρον ν τ κοιτο, cp. 92η2; 1.67.5 πντα διζµενοι , cp. 92δ1–2). Lichas

acq uires the key to his oracle from the Tegeans themselves, and this al-

lows the Sparta ns to oppress them, just as the Ba cchiads acquired the

key to their oracle from E etion, then use this new knowledge to oppress

his son. The worker a t the fo rge shares the inability of P eriander’s her-

alds a nd his elder son to comprehend the significance of the information

he supplies (1.68.3 µν δ ο λεγε τ περ ππεε, δ ννσα τλεγµενα κτλ., cp. 92ζ3). The description of Spart an success tha t follows

this long story of signs is as brief as the description of the mat ure tyra nny

of P eriander that followed his. The word used for control of the Pelo-

ponnese, κατεστραµµνη, is regularly used of eastern domination over

subject peoples (1.68.6; cp. 1.27.1, 28.1, 171.1, 177). Their rise is expressed

in the same terms as Cypselus’ (1.66.1 ν τε δραµον ατκα, cp. 5.92δ1

48Steiner does not treat t he Cypselids in this way (Tyrant’s Wr it 181–85).49

Steiner, Tyrant’s Wr it 166–74 esp. 168. Aesch. Supp. 944–49 offers a particular ex-ample.




δει κακ ναβλαστεν), but while Lichas may facilitate Spartan tyr-

anny over t he Peloponnese, he is not himself a tyra nt in any sense.50

The decipherment of signs, as in the stories of the B acchiads and

Periander a nd Lycophron, seems to be a common explana tion of action

in Herodotus rather than something chara cteristically tyrannical. More

than once he explains action as the result of a chara cter finding a wa y out

of a dilemma “ either by thinking of it himself or being advised by some-

one else” (e.g., 1.19, 61, 191).51 H e seems to expand this in the passages in

question by a dding “ through the intelligent decipherment of signs,” pro-

ducing a narrative in which the time spent on the process leading to

the action outstrips the action. Such decipherment seems to be a nother

storyteller’s explana tory device, to be a dded to t hose discussed already

by G ould.52 We would wa nt to know w hy the tyra nts followed t he advicethey deciphered, or how they carried out their purges, or how the Spar-

ta ns came to do minate the P eloponnese. The possession of the bo nes

wa s an important psychological coup, but there surely w as some military

action a s well? The story does not add ress such matters. We wo uld dis-

tinguish divine advice from oracles and human advice from Thrasybulus

and Melissa and Procles: the story does not. P eriander could be marked

by the more tyrannical character of his advisors—but Cypselus is ad-

vised by an oracle, and he is also a tyra nt.

There seems no problem in proving that the denunciation of tyr-

anny serves the narrow er context of So cles’ speech or that the images of

tyranny are not merely accidental or traditional or stereotypical. He-

rodo tus/Socles ada pts common pat terns and mo tifs to produce a ca lcu-

lated and integrated denunciat ion of two generations of tyra nny. The

next question is about the impact the speech has on its dramatic audi-

ence and H erodotus’ own contemporary a udience.

The drama tic audience for the speech consists of Spa rta ns, their al-

lies, and H ippias. H ippias is bound not to like what he hears because he

is himself a tyra nt, but he has only a w arner’s role to play abo ut the harm

that the At henians will inflict on t he Corinthians in the future. The de-

nunciation is unlikely to dissuade the Spartans from their intention to

50For historical treatments of this passage see A dshead, Politics 28–30, Ca rtledge,

Sparta 139–40.51

Xenophon also uses the device, H.G. 5.4.31.52G ould, H erodotus 73–78.




impose tyra nny, since it is unlikely t o outw eigh their fea r of challenge to

their power—though it might perhaps shame them. The allies do not

need to be persuaded of the ha rshness of tyra nny, since they already dis-

approve of the Sparta n proposal before they hear So cles speak. The

speech seems rather to motivate them to a demonstration of their own

freedom a nd collective equality with the Sparta ns by illustrating the kind

of government tha t could be coming their way, as well as that of A thens,

and providing an example of outspoken opposition to Sparta that they

could follow. The Sparta ns propose to restore tyra nny to Athens because

they believe that continuing freedom will make her their equal in

strength, whereas tyra nnical government will reduce her to weakness

and obedience and allow them to maintain their pre–eminence (5.91.1).

They might apply this kind of policy to any of the allied powers whoshowed the same signs. Socles and the a llies certainly fear it, for though

the Spart ans emphasise their equa lity with t heir allies in their appeal to

them for common purpose and action in restoring tyranny to Athens

(91.3), Socles believes that they intend to restore tyra nny to a ll the cities

(92α1 and ε5), as do the other allies in the end (93.2). Yet the allies

already demonstrate a dangerous tendency to the weakness associated

with tyranny. H erodotus says that they disapproved of the Spartan pro-

posal, but were a t fi rst unwilling to voice their opposition: “ The majority

of t he allies did not a ccept their word s. While the rest remained silent,

Socles of C orinth spoke as follows” (5.92.1). They spoke out only w hen

they heard Socles’ free and fearless opposition not only to t he Sparta ns

but to H ippias as well, which was highly symbolic of the refusal to a ccept

tyra nny: “ The rest of the allies kept silent meanwhile, but when they

heard Socles speaking like a free man (λευθερ) every one of them

broke voice and chose the opinion of the C orinthian. They bore w itness

aga inst t he La cedaemonians not to cause revolution in any H ellenic city.

This was the end of that ma tter” (5.93.2). Herodotus is adapting the

stock situation in which a proposal provokes a dissatisfied silence from

the general audience in H omer, but is broken by a lone voice whose op-

position wins their acclaim.53 Socles is tha t lone voice and his speech mo-

tiva tes the rest to speak. The growth of their allies from subservient si-

lence to open opposition ironically confirms the strengthening effects of

53

I l iad 3.95–96; 7.92–95, 398–99; 8.28–30; 9.29–31, 430–33, 693–96; 10.218–19, 313–18,23.676.




freedom which the Spartans so feared in A thens. Socles’ speech also

shows graphically the ways in which tyranny can keep a population

down. C ypselus shows how much more murderous and aggressive tyr-

anny would be even than the narrow est of oligarchies. P eriander con-

firms the wanton waste of men and grain, and the textiles that were a

special mark of wea lth. These aspects of the image of tyra nny along with

the example that Socles set encourage the allies to break their silence

and a ssert their rejection of that kind of government from Spa rta.

The subsequent readers of the narrative are another audience to

consider. They might observe that the Spart ans, as well as wa nting to im-

pose domestic tyra nnies in order t o keep others wea k (5.91.1), received

oracles previously in the possession of the Peisistratids and worked with

the tyra nt H ippias to prevent their outcome (5.90.2), just as P erianderwithin the speech wo rked with Thrasybulus to secure an o utcome, il-

lustrating the proverbial wisdom that “a tyrant works with a tyrant”

(8.142.5). Moreover, they w orked with H ippias because they shared the

tyrant G elon’s view that the demos was ungrateful and not a fit partner

(7.156.3, 5.90.1, 91.2). The Spa rta ns themselves might not like to be re-

minded of this or of their da y of signal failure to keep Athens or the al-

lies in check, but their a llies of a later t ime might revel in their one–time

assertion of independence, when Sparta t ried to retain her pre–emi-

nence by encouraging them to join her in suppressing the freedom and

strength of Athens, but pushed them instead into a demonstration of the

very qua lities they so feared in Athens. The delegate f rom C orinth is an

appropriate man to denounce tyranny because the Co rinthians had a no-

torious tyranny and were natura l leaders of the allies, but the more gen-

eral a udience might a ppreciate t he ironical wa y in which the city which

leads the movement aga inst crushing the growt h of A thens in the name

of freedom is most destined to be harmed by it. H indsight showed tha t

Socles and the allies were nursing up a lion’s cub, yet there w as no ot her

choice that a free ma n or city could have ma de between being ruled by

domestic tyrannies and having all G reece in a state o f subservience to

Sparta , or being ruled by free governments and risking dama ge from a

rising power in the struggle for control tha t might then ensue. The Athe-

nians themselves might take no exception to being reminded that they

owed t he survival of their democracy to C orinth and her P eloponnesian

allies, but the reference to the dama ge they later inflicted on the C orin-

thians would put a dent in their image as a repayer of fa vours. Xenophonrecords the view t hat the Sparta ns owed their existence to those ances-

tral At henians who saved the sons of H eracles from Eurystheus, and




that the Athenians had also given the gift of corn to the Peloponne-

sians.54 H erodotus is touching on a propaga nda w ar here.

There is also a mo re diffuse meaning to consider. The Ho meric

precedent for narrative as persuasion offers the model. B ryan H ains-

wort h says of the speech of Phoenix: “ In its primary function as a model

for A khilleus to act upon the para ble of Meleagros not only fa ils but is

also encumbered w ith several superfluous features: the prominence of

Kleopatre, her role in bringing pressure on Meleagros, and his implied

death. The presence of these features helps to establish a secondary

function of t he paradigm by means of w hich the poet constructs a mirror

of t he action of his poem and communicates to his audience an interpre-

ta tion of Akhilleus’ µνι ολοµνη.” 55 R eaders see the future of A chil-

les foreshadowed in those features considered superfluous to the imme-diate persuasion—Cleopatra is Pa troclus, and Meleager will also die

aft er returning to bat tle.

The growth of Athens that leads up to the crisis offers this same

sort of wider context for the speech of Socles. 56 There are parallels be-

tween the B acchiads and Sparta, and between C ypselus and Athens. The

Sparta ns are an unspoken oligarchy, and in the narra tive they fear the

At henians as a rising power that threatens their pre–eminence. The B ac-

chiads a re called an oligarchy, and in the speech they fear Cy pselus for

the same reasons. They are w arned by oracles of the boulder and the lion

that w ill crush and devour them, and the Sparta ns are wa rned by oracles

of the ναρσα that they will suffer from the Athenians—the word

Lateiner considers programmatic of tyranny.57 The sentence structures

describing the acquisition and decipherment of the oracles reinforce the

parallel: τν πρτερον µν σαν δαε, ττε δ Κλεοµνεο κοµσαν-το Σπρτην ξµαθον (5.90.2), τοτο µν δ τοσι Βακχιδ ησι

54Xenophon H.G. 6.3.6 and 6.5.47, also in H erod otus 9.27.2, Lysias Epitaphios 11–16,

Isocrates Panegyricus 54–65, etc.55Hainsworth, The Iliad 140 an d see 131–40.56Strasburger, “ Herodot” has a formative discussion of the speech of Socles, focus-

ing however not on t he stories of C ypselus and Periander tha t make up its content but on

its larger context, in order to reveal the apparent ambivalence of Hero dotus’ attitude to

Athens, particularly in the interchange between Socles and Hippias at the end. Stadter,

‘Athenian A rche’ argues most recently for a tyra nnical view of Athens, but emphasises the

multiple levels in the speech of Socles, 782 n. 3. G ould, H erodotus 118 does not generallylike the idea of references in H erodotus to the contempora ry situation.

57Lateiner, H istorical M ethod 177.




πρτερον γενµενον ν τκµαρτον, ττε δ τ Ηετωνι γενµενον πθοντο ατκα κα τ πρτερον συνκαν ν συνωδν τ Ηετωνο(5.92γ1). The Sparta ns try to crush the challenge from another state by

imposing tyranny, whereas the B acchiads try to crush a challenge from

tyra nny within the sta te through murder. Yet the general para llel of one

ruling group trying to preserve power by weakening or eliminating oth-

ers holds true, and this makes Cypselus para digmatic of Athens. They

both rise from infant wea kness to mat ure domination of others. The pat-

tern of C ypselus’ rise is complete, whereas A thens is just b eginning to

grow, but she is giving clear signs of eventual challenge to the Spart ans,

and Cy pselus may show where she is heading. The rise of t he free state is

different from the rise of the tyra nnical individual in obvious wa ys, but

the oracles make it clear that bo th are destined to do da mage—the freestate to the other stat es of G reece, the tyrannical individual to the other

groups in his city—and t hat neither Ba cchiads nor Sparta ns will stop

them (λευθερωθε νκυψε 5.91.2 perhaps suggests that At hens af ter

liberation “ did a Κψελο” ). The Spartans point to the damage the

Athenians will do when they say tha t the neighbours of A thens have al-

ready begun to learn abo ut the resulting cost of her growth, and if they

are not stopped τχα δ τι κα λλο κµαθσεται µαρτν. Hippias

confirms that the Corinthians will miss the Peisistratids when the days

come round for them to be harmed b y the At henians: µν Κορινθουµλιστα πντων πιποθσειν Πεισιστρατδα, ταν σφι κωσι µραι α κριαι νισθαι π’ Αθηναων. H erodotus says H ippias knew exactly

wha t the oracles meant (το χρησµο τρεκστατα νδρν ξεπιστ-µενο).

There is also the image of C ypselus as lion. H ipparchus the son of

the tyrant Peisistratus is another lion.58 The mother of Pericles, named

aft er her ancestor Aga riste, the daughter of C leisthenes tyrant of Sicyon,

dreamed in Athens that she would bear a lion and subsequently gave

birth t o P ericles (6.131.2). The image ha s been thought amb iguous, but in

the context of tyrannical lineage and in the light of the discussion of

Cy pselus abo ve, it seems less so. Pluta rch’s reference to contemporary

comic poets who depicted Pericles as tyrant may give food for thought

abo ut his domestic control,59 but H ippias’ oracle referred to an a tta ck on

58Strasburger, “ Hero dot” 3, 17 discusses views and concludes that the lion image isambivalent.

59Plutarch L ife of Pericles 16, 7.6.




Co rinth and P lutarch’s further reference to the Athenians “ biting Eu-

boea a nd tra mpling on the islands” shows what could be implied in a lion

image on the imperial scale. The Athenians had no mo re reason to ob-

ject to this image tha n to the comic poets or Thucydides, who ha d P eri-

cles and Cleon directly call their empire a tyranny.60 H erodotus is not in-

clined to admire the Ionians, but there would be sat isfaction in the

tyrannical image for those among her own allies who disliked Athens,

and perhaps some diversion for others in being reminded that Corinth

will be the victim on this occasion. The reactions of the C orinthians to

this image of empire would be predicta ble, as well as those of the Spar-

ta ns and the rest of their a llies.

The conclusion must be that the speech operates on various levels

of audience. It demonstrates that t yranny is unjust and bloodthirsty aswell as extra vagantly w asteful of resources, and this along with the con-

trasting example of freedom that So cles offers them, motivates the allies

to declare their opposition to the tyrannical proposal and behaviour of

the Spartans. Herodotus’ audience will take aw ay other meanings, too,

which reflect the panhellenic power politics of the period leading up to

the Peloponnesian War as well perhaps as the images that leading cities

had b een trying to establish in that period.61

The idea that H erodotus has ada pted Socles’ paradigm of tyra nny

to fi t the dra matic as w ell as this wider context explains its images better

than the tyranny of sources or the freedom of traditional narrative, and

this can also be seen in the adaptation to its context of the story of Ly-

cophron, which is the other main evidence for the Corinthian tyra nny.

Herodotus is not primarily concerned with projecting a stereotype of

tyra nny, but w ith serving his various contexts. The careers of different ty-

rants can share common pat terns, but they can also be subject to very

different ones, and t heir differences even within common patt erns are

marked. They do not a ll arise in the same wa y and a re not alwa ys violent,

savage, lustful, mutilating, murderous, sign–readers or perfectly unjust,

and w here they do possess one or two of these qualities, they often share

them with other non–tyrannical figures (Lichas, H ermotimus). Some of

them are more manipulative than violent (Deioces, Peisistrat us), several

are just to a n excessive extent which ignores compassion (D eioces, Ly-

60Thuc. 2.63.3, 3.37.2.61As has been so well argued for Athens by Loraux, I nvention of A thens, an d

Thomas, Or al Tradition.




cophron), others ignore compassion and a re monstrously unjust (C ypse-

lus, Ca mbyses), quite a few of them come from dysfunctional families

and survive extermination attempts (Cypselus, Cyrus, Lycophron), and

quite a few more come down from the marginal hills to the plain (Pei-

sistratus, Cy pselus, C yrus)—but by no means all and by no means in the

same wa y. I suspect that examination of further evidence would reach

similar conclusions.

VIVIENNE J. G R AY

U NI VERSI TY OF AU C K L A N D

e–mail: [email protected]

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Adshead, Kate. Politics of the Ar chaic Peloponnese: The Transition fr om A rchaic to C lassical Pol iti cs. Amersham, B ucks.: Avebury, 1986.

Andrewes, Anthony. The Gr eek Tyrants. London: H utchinson U niversity Press,

1956.

Berve, Helmut. D ie Tyrannis bei der G riechen. 2 vols. Munich: C. H. B eck, 1967.

B remmer, Jan.“ Oedipus and the G reek Oedipus Complex.” In I nterpr etations of Gr eek M ythology, edited by Jan Bremmer, 41–59. London and Sydney:

Cro om H elm, 1987.

Cartledge, Paul.Sparta and L akonia, A Regional H istory 1300–362 B.C. London:

R outledge & Kega n Pa ul, 1979.

Cawkwell, G . L. “ Sparta and Her Allies in the Sixth Century.” CQ 43 (1993)

364–76.

D elcourt, Marie. “ La Légende du Kaineus,” Revue de L’H istoire des Religion s 143–44 (1953) 129–50.

D ubois, Page. Sowing the Body: Psychoanaly sis and Ancient Representations of Women. Chicago and London: U niversity of C hicago P ress, 1988.

Erbse, Ha rtmut. Studien zur Verständni s H erodots. B erlin:E . J. B rill, 1992.

Flory, Stewart.The A rchaic Smil e of H erodotu s. D etroit: Wayne State U niversity

P ress, 1987.

Forrest, W. G. The Emergence of G reek D emocracy:T he Character of G reek Pol- it ics 800–400 B.C. Lo ndon: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1978.

G ar land, Robert . The Eye of the Beholder: D eformi ty and D isability in the Graeco–Roman Worl d. London: D uckworth, 1995.

G ould, John.H erodo tus: H istorians on Hi storians. Lond on: Weidenfeld & Nicol-

son, 1989.

Hainsworth, Bryan. The Iliad:A Commentary,Vol. II I: Books 9–12. Cambridge:

Ca mbridge U niversity Press, 1993.




Harrison, A. R. W. The L aw of Athens:The Family and Property.Oxford:C laren-

don Press, 1968.

Hart , John. H erodo tus and Gr eek H istory. London: Croom Helm, 1982.

Har tog, F. The Mi rror of H erodotus. Translated by Janet Lloyd. B erkeley and

Los Angeles: U niversity of California Press, 1988.

Janko, Richard. The Il iad: A Commentary, Vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge:

Ca mbridge U niversity Press, 1992.

Lateiner, D onald. The H istorical M ethod of H erodotus. Toronto, Buffa lo, and

Lond on: U niversity of Toronto P ress, 1989.

Long, Timothy.Repetition and Vari ation i n the Short Stories of H erodo tus. Frank-

furt am Main: Athena eum, 1987.

Loraux, Nicole. The I nvention of A thens: The Funeral Or ation in the Classical City. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Ca mbridge, Mass.: Ha rvard University

Pr ess, 1986.McG lew, James F. Tyranny and Poli tical Cul ture in A ncient G reece. I thaca : Cor-

nell U niversity Press, 1993.

Pellizer, Ezio. “ Periandro di Corinto e il forno freddo.” In Tradizi one e Inno- vazione nella Cul tura G reca da Omero all’ EtàEl lenistica.Scritti i n honor e di Bruno Gentili, edited by P retagost ini, Roberto, 801–11. Roma: G EI,

1994.

Sa lmon, J .B . Wealthy Corin th. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Sourvinou–Inwood, Christiane. “ ‘Myth’ and History: On H erodotos 3.48 and

3.50–53.” In “Reading” Gr eek Culture. Texts and Images, Rituals and M yths, 244–85. O xford: Cla rendon P ress, 1991.

Stadter, P. “ H erodotus and the Athenian Arche.” ASNP 22 (1992) 781–809.

Steiner, D eborah. The Tyrant’s Wri t: M yths and Images of Writing in A ncient G reece. Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press, 1994.

Strasburger, Hermann. “ Herodo t und das Perikleische Athen.” Historia 4 (1955)1–25.

Thomas, R osalind. Oral Traditi on and W ritten Record in Classical A thens. Cam-

bridge: Ca mbridge U niversity Press, 1989.

Vernant, Jean–Pa ul. “ From Oedipus to Periander: Lameness, Tyranny, Incest in

Legend and History.” A rethusa 15 (1982) 19–38.

Waters, K . H. H erodotu s on Tyrants and D espots: A Study in O bjectivity. Wies-

bad en: H istoria E inzelschriften, 1971.


117.3gray herodous and the tyrrants

Documents