A Study of the Representations in Greek
Lyric Poetry of the Powerful Emotiona! Response that Tyranny
Provoked in :ts Audience at the Time of Tyranny's Earliest
Appearance in the Ancient World.
"-Epw<;_ TUp_Qvvioo<;":
•
Peter Panagiotis Samaras,
University, Montreal.
Department of Classics,
McGiII
June 1996.
•
A Thesis submitted to the faculty of Graduate Studies in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
©
P~erSamaras1996
.+.
National Llbrary
of Canada
Bibliothèque nallC\nale
du Canada
ACqUiSitionS and
BlbllographlC SeMCes Branch
Direction des acquisitions el
des seMCes bibliographiques
rue Well'"9'on
395 W(!'lhnqlon $trœl
395.
OttaWit OnliiflQ
Onawa (OnlanO)
Kl A Ql\l4
K1A
ON~
The author has granted an
irrevocable non-exclusive licence
allowing the National Library of
Canada to reproduce, loan,
distribute or sell copies of
hisjher thesis by any means and
in any form or format, making
this thesis 3vailable to interested
persons.
l'auteur a accordé une licence
irrévocable et non exclusive
permettant à la Bibliothèque
nationale
du
Canada
de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de sa thèse
de quelque manière et sous
quelque forme que ce soit pour
mettre des exemplaires dé cette
thèse à la disposition des
personnes intéressées.
The author retains ownership of
the copyright in hisjher thesis.
Neither the thesis nor substantial
extracts from it may be printed or
otherwise reproduced without
hisjher permission.
l'auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d'auteur qui protège sa
thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits
substantiels de celle-ci ne
doivent
être
imprimés
ou
autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
ISBN 0-612-19917-7
Canada
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
III
Abstract (In E!'lglish and French)
IV
General Introduction
•
1
Chapter 1
1.1
Introduction: Early Usage of Tùpavvoc; and TupavviC;.
1.2 Either Tyrant or King: Semonides 7W 69-70.
6
9
1.3 Kingship in Homer.
10
1.4 Ring Composition in Archilochus 19W
13
1.5
"'Avalo~al
SEWV tpva".
15
1.6 Solon 33W
20
1.7 Gyges in Herodotus and in Archilochus 23W.
25
1.8 Conclusion: The Meaning of the Word Tyrant in
Archilochus.
•
30
Chapter2
2.1
Introduction: The Eye and the Emotions.
34
2.2 Envy and the Eye.
35
2.3 Tyranny and Eros: An IntrodLiction.
41
2.4 Eros and the Eye.
46
2.5 Excursus: -Epwc;, -O\jllc;, and I\avoc; in Gorgias'
Encomium of Helen.
50
2.6 "Epwc; and "O\jllc; in Plato.
57
2.7 The 'Gaze' of Desire in Lyric Poetry and the Tragic
Theatre.
62
"
2.8 The Luminosity of Desire.
69
2.9 Tyranny, Desire, Vision, and Luminosity;n Thucydides.
71
2.10 Gold as an Aspect of Tyrannical Luminosity.
74
2.11
Desire, Tyranny, Vision, and the Luminosity of Gold
in Bacchylides 20B SM.
2.12 Beauty and the
Tym~t:
86
Semonides ïW 57-70.
96
2.13 Cor.clusion: The COllSpicuous Visibility of Tyranny 1
Final Remarks on Archilochus 19W.
•
Appendix 1
117
The Image of the Flayed Tyrant in G. Seferis'
Poem .... , tnl
cicma~ci8wv".
123
Appendix Il : AalJnpOTl1C; in Plato's Timaeus.
128
Appendix III: The Word MOvapXoc;.
.133
Bibliography
138
•
:
:
iii
Acknowledgements
1 wish to express gratitude to my teacher. Professor Anne Carson. who
direeted this :~Iesis. Her generous assistance and keen observations greatly
ameliorated the quality of my work. And yet. only a much better essay than
this one wouId be sufficient thanks for Professor Carson's efforts. both as
teacher and as thesis supervisor. to help me make the transition trom
enthusiastic student to scholar.
•
My research was funded by a scholarship granted by Fonds pour la
Formation de Chercheurs et" Aide à la Recherche (FCAR). 1wish to express
gratitude to FCAR for this honour.
During the time this thesis was being written. 1was fortunate to recelve much
needed encouragement and moral support from a number of wonderful
people. 1am grateful to ail. and 1would like to single out a few:
•
Tommy Kakkos and Helen Vassiliou. (jllÀOl
My aunt Dionysia Samaras.
loannis Raptis. esteemed peer.
My dearest Evangelia Samona. aùvTpoqlOV Ô\J\.lQ
My fearless sister Natalie Samaras.
My generous mother Anna Samaras.
Especially my most excellent father Petros Samaras to whom this
essay is dedicated, with ail my love and appreciation.
:
iv
ABSTRACT
•
Since Its earliest appearance, the word Tupavvic; referred to absolute rule
obtained in defiance of any constitution that existed previously, ln early
Gree" lyric poetry, tyranny is represented as a divine blessing, but one that
meets with opposition against the tyrant and puzzlement at the behaviour of
the gods. In Archilochus and elsewhere tyrannical ambition is tenmed eros.
The cummon property that makes both tyranny and beauty objects of eros is
luminosity: As the 'radiance' (ÀOIJTYpOTTlC;) of beauty is to the lover, so the
'splendour' (ÀoJ,mpOTTlC;) of tyranny is to the tyrannical "lover", The major
symbol of tyrannical luminosity is gold. Conspicuous use of wealth and
women contributed to the visibility of tyrannical splendour.
ABSTRAIT
•
Dès sa première apparence. le mot TUpaVV1C; se referrait à la souveraineté
absolue obtenue hors quelquonque Constitution qui éxistait précédement.
Dans quelques des premières poèmes lyriques Grècques. la tyrannie est
representée comme une bénédiction divine qui. cependent. rencontre l' affront contre le tyran et l' etonnement concernant le comportement des dieux.
Dans l'oeuvre d'Archiloque et ailleurs l'ambition tyrannique est decrit
comme "eros" La faculté commune qui fait en même temps la tyrannie et la
beauté objets d' "eros" est la luminosité: La splendeur (ÀOIJTYpoTTlC;) de la
tyrannie est la même chose pour le tyran que la radiance (ÀOIJT".pàTTlC;) de la
beauté pour l'amoureux. Le plus grand symbole de la splendeur tyrannique
est l'or. L'usage évident de l' or et des femmes contribuait à 1évidence de la
splendeur tyrannique.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ln his discussion of early Greek tyranny. Professor Oswyn Murray
succinetly observes that 'the experience of tyranny created
~
fascination and
a hatred which permanently influenced Greek political attitudes against
monarchy, until the establishment cf the huge territorial kingdoms of the
hellenistic world". Our own essay amounts to an attempt to enlarge on this
point, specifically to explore the imaginative expression, in Greek lyric poetry
•
and elsewhere, :>f both the fascination and the hatred wlth which tyranny was
regarded in ancient Greece.
ln our first chapter we consider this ambivalent re,ponse to tyranny by
deteeting a theme running through the earliest representations of tyranny in
Greek lyric poetry (those of Archilochus, Alcaeus, and Solon). a theme ln
which tyranny is regarded as a gift from the gods to the tyrant: this gift,
however, occasions bitter hostility against the tyrant as weil as a strong
sense of astonishment and puzzlement at the outrageous good fortune that
the gods inexplicably bestow upon the tyran!. We discuss this theme
extensively in conneclion with Archilochus fr. 19W (in sections four and flve),
and Solon fr. 33W (in section six).
•
However, the main question that motivates the diScussion of our flrst
chapter is that of the earliest meaning of the word
TUpaVVIC;,
which first
appears in the work of Archilochus. The most comprehensive discussion of
the word 'tyranny' in the Greek context has been offered by Professor A.
Andrewes in a standard historical work on early Greek tyrannl. Few would
disagree with Andrewes that in early Greek lyric poetry
TupaVVIC;
referred to
absolute power in the state obtained and maintained in defiance of any
constitution that existed previously. Few would disagree that Alcaeus, Solon,
and Theognis give the word a negative connotation. But Professor Andrewes
, Murray 1980.138.
2 Andrewes 1956.20-30.
2
also argues that when Archilochus introduced the word, he applied it in a
qUlte neutral sense, as a synonym of 'king', a;'1d thatthis sense persisted in
fiflh century poetry This view, which was formulated more than four decades
ago, and which rests on not much more than a glance at Archilochus fr. 19W
and a glance at usage of the word tyrant in tragedy, unfo,tunately has not
oeen seriously challenged to this date, at least so far as my research informs
me On the basis of evidence that Andrewes' argument overlooks, and of
evidence that has recenlly surfaced (in the form of a new Archilochean
•
fragment\ we argue that although Archilochus did not apparenlly use
TUpaVVlC;
Nith a negative connotation, he nevertheless used it in the basic
sense of absolute rule, unconstitutionally or illegitimately obtained, Thus
chapter one serves both as an introdu,-,tory discussion ot the word
TUpaVVlC;,
and as an introductory exploration of early poetic representations of tyranny,
Our lengthy second chapter concent ates on the fascination that
tyranny in ancient Greece was capable of inspiring, 50 powerful indeed was
this fascination that Archilochus could describe ambition for a tyranny as
eros (Archil. 19W 3). The basic question that motivates our exploration in our
second chapter is the following: 'What is it that makes tyrannical ambition
eros?' One could perhaps dismiss this question as misguided. Afler ail in
•
Homer eros does not appear to be much more than a generic term applicable
to many different kinds of desire. If eros in Homer can easily refer to desire
for food and drink, for singing and dancing, for warring and for lamenting,
why should we consider it striking at ail that Archilochus applied the same
word to express desire for tyrannical power? To confront this fair objection
we could argue, as we do in section three of our second chapter, that afler
Homer we observe remarkable developments in the concept of eros: in early
lyric poetry the word eros applies almost exclusively in the sense of sexual
desire, and this goes along with a profound appreciation of the centrality of
the experience of desire in Iife, Indeed, from Hesiod onwards Eros becomes
3
Archilochus fragment 23W.
3
a divinity whose indomitable power extends over mortals and immortals alike.
and the early lyric poets gave incomparable representations of
eros
as an
intense, overwhelming experience that involves the most wondrous JOys and
the most excruciating pains. In this context. then. it is certainly quite stnking
that Archilochus attracts lyranny to this ali-important experience. and that he
does so in the passage where we encounter the word 'lyranny' for the very
tirst time. Thus the inquiry into the characteristic quality of tyranny that would
make it an appropriate object of eros seems worthwhile indeed, and it
•
appears even more vital if we consider that in the tifth century eros. in a
metaphorical sense, applied mainly, and extensively. in political contexts.
and that several authors followed Archilochus in describing tyrannical
ambition as eros'.
ln the context of our basic inquiry on the connection between tyranny
and desire. we also explore the question of the role of vision in desire. In
section four of our second chapter and following, we ngorously argue that
there is abundant evidence in post-Homeric Greek Iiterature to suggest that
vision was considered the primary sensory stimulus to desire This ln turn
suggests that the required property that would make tyranny a proper obJect
of desire would probably be a visible quality. Indeed. after a long adventure
•
in the land of
eros.
we identify in section nine the required property as
"C1l.lnpOTllC: (Iuminosity), and we formulate our basic hypothesis that 'as the
radiance ("C1l.lnpoTllC:) of beauty is to the lover, so the splendour (AOlJnPOTl'lC:)
of tyranny is to the tyrannical "lover'"
ln the remalnder of the chapter we
proceed to strengthen and deepen our hypothesis, and to show its value ln
aiding our interpretations of certain early poems on tyranny.
On the very important topie of tyranny and eros. 1found the following works very helpful:
The synoptie treatments of This theme in Herodotus in Hartog 1988335-336. and ln
Bemadete 1969.137; a ehapter titled "The Charms of Tyranny· in a recent book by G. Nagy
(Nagy 1990.274-313); finally a ehapter titled "Lovers of the City" in a recently published
major study of Greek tyranny (McGlew 1993.183-212). Valuable aise was W Arrowsmlth's
discussion of political eros. in the context of his interpretation of Aristophanes' /lird.'
(Arrowsmith 1973.119-167).
4
4
The above overview makes it quite clear that our essay deals with
simple questions in simple ways. This in itself is a virtue provided that what is
simple does not become simplistic. And although even the most kindly
disposed reader would probably find serious limitations in our discussion, we
do not fear that being overly simplistic would be one of these.
Further, our consideration of our main questions frequently occasions
CTll
~&POUC;
explorations that are both valuable to our main inquiries and
interesting in themselves. In the context of our discussion of Solon fr. 33W,
for instance, we also consider how Solon's unforgettable image of the f1ayed
•
tyrant influenced Plato's expression of his condemnation of tyranny in the
Myth of Er included in the Republic5 ; also we consider how, in modem times,
Seferis lIsed the same image à merveille to enhance his riveting protest
against the military regime that ruled Greece in the late sixties and early
seventies of our own century6. At the opening of our second chapter we
assemble texts from Hesiod to Libanius to show that in post-Homeric
literature sight is represented as the primary sensory stimulus to envy, and
we argue that this connection between envy and vision is implicit in
Aristotle's very definitions of i;i]Àoc; and <p6àvoc; in the Rhecori/. Further on in
our second chapter we attempt to explain how Gorgias' appreciation of the
•
role of vision in desire influences his ideas on the connection between eros
and peith08 . We further discuss how Plato's depiction of the lover's response
to the beloved at the moment of inception of desire reflects fonmal Greek
responses to beauty in literature from Homer to Heliodorus9 . In the context of
our discussion of the 'gaze' of desire, we offer an interpretation of the
concept of eros in Sophocles' Philocceces'o. Also, in the context of our
discussion of the 'Iuminosity' of desire we offer a bold suggestion that Plato's
> Ch. 1, sedian 6.
Appendix 1.
, Ch. 2. sedian 2.
6 Ch. 2. sedian 5.
9 Ch. 2. sedion 6-8.
'0 Ch. 2. sedion 7.
6
5
effluences of beauty. whlch carry deSlre from the beloved Into the lover's
eyes and from there Into hls soul. are composed of transcendent fJre klndled
by the
ÀOl-mpOTT')C;
of the beloved. and we employ thlS Inslght to exphcate the
imagery of light in certain love poems datlng from Hellemsbc bmes 11
Following our discussion of gold as a major aspect of tyrannlcal lumlnosity.
we consider how wild ambitions for tyranny and abundant wealth could anse
in the contex! of the symposium. and how Bacchylides. in fr 20B SM. offers
tactful ethical admonition against such excessive aspirabons': Finally. In the
context of our interpretation of Semonides fr. 7W 57-70. we consider how
•
tyrants took advantage of the occasion of marriage so as to magnify the
splendour of their tyranny'3.
Throughout my essay 1 have taken good care to strengthen my Ideas
with respectful consideration of relevant sholarship. Yet it would only be fair
to point out that the main argument and several of the ideas in the ancillary
discussions of the present essay are quite original. 1 submit it, then, with
some pride. as a contribution to the discipline of Ancient Greek Philology.
•
" Appendix II.
Ch. 2. section 11.
'3 Ch. 2. section 12.
12
6
CHAPTER 1. TYRANNY IN ARCHILOCHUS
1.1 INTRODUCïION: EARLy USAGE OF TYPANNOI AND TYPANMI
The standard work. in the English language, on Greek tyranny defines
'tyran!' in the Greek sense as 'roughly what we would cali a dictator, a man
who obtained sole power in the state and held it in defiance of any
constitution that existed previously". The words Tupavvic:; (and its synoroym
Tupavvla) and Tùpavvoc:; occur nowhere in Homer or in Hesiod; but we
•
encounter the former in our extant Archilochus". Further, the erudite fifth
century sophist Hippias of Elis assures us that the word. which is non-Greek
and non-Indoeuropean, entered the Greek language in Archilochus' time
3
.
In
the fragment where we first encounter the form TUpaVV[C:;, the Parian poet
constructs a speaker who denies any ambition for a tyranny:
"où IJOI Ta rùy&W TOÙ TlO~UXpùaou 1Jé:~&1
000' &iÀ& millJ& ~ii~cx;, 000' àyaiOlJal
8&wv tpya, lJ&y<i~l1C:; o' OÙK &P&W TupavvioCX;.
àTlonpoEl&v yàp taTlV 6<p8a~IJWV &lJwv," (Archilochus 19W)
"( do not care about Gyges with ail his gold,
nor has jealousy seized me yet; 1am not indignant at
the actions of the gods, and 1do not desire a great tyranny.
for ail this is far away from my eyes."
•
Andrewes 1956.7.
TUpavvioo.; Archil.19W 3; TUpavvi'l Archil. 23W 21.The word TiJpavvoc; also appears in the
tifth verse of the llomeri.. llymn to .·\rcs as an epithet of the war gOO. This hymn almos1
certainly dates from Alexandrian times, or, quite probably, even later. See Allen, Halliday,
and Sikes 1963.384-385; also Athanassakis 1970.98.
3 Hippias 6 FHG. In fragment 19W, Archilochus apparently applies TUpavviC; to the rule of
Gyges in Lydia (ca. 687-652). The ancient etymologis1s uniformly note possible affinities of
the word with Lydian words and names, and on this basis argue that the word originated in
Lydia and that Gyges was the tirs! persan to whom the term TiJpavvoc; was applied (see
aym. Gudi~num S.v. TiJpavvoc;; also aym. M~gnum under the same entry; and discussion
in Hegyi 1965.309-310). This is also the position thatthe earties1 major work. in English. on
Greek tyranny adopls (Ure 1922.127 and following). and a contemporary article rigorously
argues once more thatthe word TiJpavvoc; originated in the Lydian language (Labarbe 1971)
However. another relatively recent article rejects this view on Iinguis1ic grounds. but still
favours an Anatolian (specitically Lycian) origin of the word. See Hegyi 1965.316-318. For
more on the possible origin of the word TiJpavvoc; see Clay 1986.13 nn. 22 and 23. Also
Murray 1993.137.
1
2
7
Professor A. Andrewes comments on this passage as follows·:
Archilochus' speaker certainly thought that a tyranny was
something which most men wouid desire to exercise. but it IS not
obvious from this fragment alone what precise meaning and colour
the word had. Gyges had usurped the throne, which might suggest
that tyrannos in Greek meant "usurper" from the first. but its use in
later poets makes it Iikely that the meaning was more neutral, in
fact that Archilochus used it as a synonym for king.
The fact of the matter is that in the poetry that immediately followed
Archilochus, the word tyrant not only takes the meaning of 'unconstitutional
•
ruler' (and therefore not the benign meaning of 'king'), but also acquires a
strong negative connotation. As early as Solon we find tyranny associated
with 'ruthless violence' (Bille: cilJ&lÀixou Solon 32W 2: cf. 34W 7). Further,
Theognis urges his audience 'not to magnify a tyran!' (lJllT& TlV' a~&
TûpaVVOV 823), but indeed to 'throw down a people-devouring tyrant as you
wish' (olllJO<llayov oi: TÙpaVVOV ënw<; i:8éÀ&Ie: KaTaKÀival 1181: cf. 1204).
Xenophanes, in turn, speaks of 'hated tyranny' (TUpaVV1lle: ... OTUY&Plle:
Xenophanes 3W 2).
Finally Alcaeus severely castigates
his fellow
Mytileneans for raising Pittacus to tyrannical power:
Té\' KOKonaTploav
q>iTTOKOV nOÀIO'; Tae: ciXOÀlll KC:Ù 13apuéailJovoc;
i:OToO'aVTo Tùpavvov ... (Alcaeus 348 LP)
•
The base-born
Pittacus they established as tyrant
of this gutless, iII-fated city. . .
Yet several scholars have been surprised that despite the force of the above
quoted passages, the fifth century tragedians could apparently employ
TUpo.VVoc; interchangeably with 13aO'lÀ&~ (the usual Greek word for 'king')
'without feeling that tyrant is at ail a derogatory term for the kings of tragedy,
or anything but a mere synonym of king's.
4
Andrewes 1956.22.
1956.22.
5 Andrewes
8
Professor Andrewes proœeds to explain that Archilochus, in whose
poetry we have the first appearance of Tupavvic: probably adopted the word
as a synonym of l3aolÀl:ùC: with a different metrical value and that this sense
persisted in poetry6.
Exploration of the meaning and colour of Tùpavvoc: in tragedy is a task
both difficult and delicate, and certainly beyond the scope of our stud/.
However, on the basis of the available evidence and with the help of recent
scholarship, we may perhaps be able to show that while Archilochus does
•
not evidently give the word 'tyran!' a negative connotation, he nevertheless
uses it in the sense of 'usurper of power'. as do Solon, Theognis, and
Alcaeus . Indeed Professor Andrewes' argument overlooks the fact that in the
poetry of Semonides of Amorgos, a contemporary of Archïlochus, we
encounter a distinction between TùpaVVOC: and O'KllmoÙ)(oc:, an Homeric word
for king B. Further, since the time that Andrewes' work on tyranny was wrillen,
a new Archilochean fragment containing the word Tupavv[ll has surfaced (fr.
23W). This additional evidenœ may be enough to support our view that
tyranny from the start meant absolute power in the state obtained and
maintained by unconstitutional or illegitimate means. The question of the
•
Andrewes 1956.23. One year before Andrewes' work on tyranny was published, and in an
important artide on earty Greek tyranny, Professor Mary White had slmilarfy suggested that
in Archilochus 'TUpavvic: ... is probably simply a synonym for royal or absolute power'.
Further on however. Professor White qualifies this statement by saying that 'as earfy as
Alkaios, Theognis, and Solon it has the derogatory sense of despotic power based on fraud
or violence. There may be some suggestion of this meaning even in the firs! use by
Archilochus of Gyges. a resourceful usurper who in a palace intrigue killed his predecessor,
married his queen, and by a vigorous and devious policy established the Mennnad dynasty
as the ruling power in Anatolia' (White 1955.2). This view largely resembles our own.
7 The need however to address the serious problem of attitudes towards tyranny in the tragic
plays is greater now than it ever was; for the unexamined assumption that the tragedians
employ the very frequent tenns jlacnAEUc; and Tlipavvoc: as synonyms has led to too many
misinterpretations of tragedy. Professor Pierre Vidal-Naquet characteristically states that
'many translators have the deplorable habit of translating turannos as "king"' (Vemant and
Vidal-Naquet 1988.486-487. Unfortunately 1have not been able to find any recent studies of
the words jlacnAEUc; and Tlipavvoc: in tragedy. But 1refer my reader to Professor A. Ferrill's
admirable, exhaustive study of these tenns in Herodotus. Ferrill argues that in his usage of
these tenns Herodotus betrays 'an overwhelming hostility toward tyranny' (Ferrill 1978.387).
Ferrill's clear and powerful arguments might provide a valuable approach with which the
meaning and colour of the word Tlipavvoc: in tragedy could perhaps be reassessed.
8 On 5emonides' date, see L1oyd-Jones 1975.15-16; Gerber 1970.53.
6
9
meaning of the word 'tyrant' in Archilochus will provide the conneeting thread
of our exploration in this chapter. Our discussion will also include critical
interpretations of the above mentioned poems of Archilochus, as weil as a
reading of Solon 33W.
1.2 EITHER TYRANT OR KING: SEMONIDES 7W 69-70.
We begin with Semonides. The distinction 'either tyrant or king' appears
in a passage from Sem. 7W, a lengthy satirical poem on women. In this
•
pasage (57-70) the poet portrays a woman described as a~Ptl, meaning here
both that she is delicate and beautiful, and that she likes to live in luxurl.
After complaining that she will do no housework but prefers to take care of
her appearance ail day, Semonides concludes that this lady is indeed 'a
pretty sight for others (KQhOV SCTlI.IQ ahhOlOl 67), but to the one who marries
her she becomes an evil (T<!i èS' i:xovTI yiYV&TQl KQKOV 68) unless one is a
tyrant, or else a scepter-bearing king (liv I.Itl TIC; li Tùpo.VVoc;
i1
OJ(TlnToùXoc;
ft
69), a man that is who can afford to delight in such things (ô<mc; TOlolrtOlC;
8uI.Iov aYhQi1;&Tal 70). Here tyrants and kings are in a class by themselves;
they represent for Semonides the only types of men who can afford to glory
in a beautiful wife who is fond of luxury. But these two types of men, tyrants
•
and kings, are distinguished. However, since Semonides does not explain
exactly why tyrants and kings differ trom each-other, we will have to look
elsewhere for additional insight on this distinction.
The word OJ(TlnToùXoc; occurs nowhere else in lyric poetry, but is
trequent in Homer. Thus we may speculate on the distinction between tyrants
and kings tirst by discussing OJ(TlnToùXoc;, and kingship generally, in Homer,
and then by tuming to Archilochus for tyrants.
9 For a detailed literary reading of this passage, which includes discussion of the importance
of c!IllPoaUvrI in it. see section twelve below.
10
1.3 KINGSHIP IN HOMER
Homer applies the adjective OK!1mOÙXOC; as an epithet of l3aolÀ&ù<;, and
as a substantive in the sense of O'K!1moùXOC; l3aO'lÀ&uc;. On their own l3aO'lÀ&uc;
and the feminine form l3aolÀ&la can apply to any member of a ruling class
family (the l3aO'lÀT}&C;, the noble families, are distinguished from the common
folk, the OT}~oc;). When used in the plural, O'K!1moùX0C; can apply to a group of
heads of noble families. In one passage for instance, the plural oKllmoùxol
applies to a group of Phaeacian eiders (Odyssey 8.41-47). When used in the
•
singular it uniformly applies to to the most powerful kings. those who rule by
the sceptre. The precise meaning and colour of the word are revealed in the
passage on the ancestral sceptre of Agamemnon, where it is shown that
Homeric kingship is hereditary (lliad 2.101-108: 1 will quote this passage
further on in this section), and in proverbial sayings such as the following:
. . . . . où nce' 6~0IllC; t~~op& Tl~T]C;
O'K!1moùXOC; l3aO'lÀ&uc; W T& Z&Ù<; KOOoc; tOWK&V. (lliad 1.278-279)
. . . never equalto the others' is the portion of honour
of a sceptre-bearing king to whom Zeus has given glory.
To illustrate the character of Homeric kingship we may consider the
•
community of Ithaca. In Ithaca there are several l3aO'lÀT]&C; (Od. 1.394-395).
Two of the suitors, Antinous and Eurymachus, are explicitly mentioned as
such (18.64-65; 24.179). But Odysseus' family is referred to as 'kinglier' than
the others in a passage which emphasizes the permanence of their privilege:
'Than yours is no other family kinglier in Ithaca, but you are powerful forever'
(lJI,i&TÉPOU 0' OÛK tcm ye:VOC; l3aO'lÀ&Ut&pov àÀÀo èv oti~C!l leciKl]C;, àÀÀ' lJI,i&lC;
I\QpT&poi ai&i 15. 333-334). Odysseus himself is the ruling king, the only one
l3aO'lÀ&Ù<; in Ithaca to whom the the verb 13aO'lÀ&U''» is applied (2.47). Further,
he is the only man in Ithaca to whom the epithet O'Kl]moùXoc; is applied in a
passage which emphasizes his supreme authority. The speaker is Mentor,
Odysseus' trusty friend:
11
"KEKÀU1:e: i5n vùv I-Ie:u leaKTlmol. onl Ke:V e:inw'
1-11'1 'tIC; e'tl npO<jlpwv o.yavoc; Kai ï,TllOC; &a'tw
OKTlmoù)(oc; f3amÀe:ùc;. I-ITli5& cppe:aiv aiall-la e:ii5wC;.
o.ÀÀ· cie:i xaÀe:noc; 't' e:iTl Kat aiauÀa pt~Ol'
Wc; OÙ 'tIC; 1-I&I-IVTl'tal 'Oi5uaa1'1oc; ee:lOlO
Àawv olmv àvaaae:. na'tnp 15' wC; ï,TllOC; r;e:v." (Odyss<'y 2229-234)
•
"Listen now to me men of Ithaca. 10 what 1say:
Never from now on let a sceptre-bearing king willingly be kind
and gentle. nor let him know righteousness in his heart
but may he always be harsh and commit evils
since apparently no-one remembers divine Odysseus
of the people over whom he ruled. though he was gentle like a father,
We may discern a similar pattern in lhe global contexl of the W:IJ. Here of
course, at the camp of the Achaeans, figure many glorious kings: but one in
particular, Agamemnon, is the 'kingliest' (f3aaIÀe:ù'ta'toc; 11. 9.69). and il is to
him that Homer applies the epithel OKTlmOùXOC; so as 10 emphasize his
superior status (1.279; 14.93; cf. 2.107-108, 204-206; also 9.97-99), It is
worthwhile to consider the impressive passage on Agamemnon's ancestral
sceptre:
•
... o.và 15& Kpeiwv 'AYOl-l&l-IvWV
ecrrTl OKi;mpov exwv' 'tol-lev "H<palcrroc; Kèq.le 'teÙ)(lll\'.
"H<palcrroc; I-I&V i5ÙlKe ll.ü KpoviwVI àvaK'tI,
aÙ'tàp àpo Zeùc; i5ÙlKe i5IQK't~ 'pyelcpOv'tn'Epl-leiac; 15& civa~ i5ÙlKe 'A 'tptï nOlI-l&VI Àawv'
'A'tpe:ÙC; 15& eVT]OKWV eÀlTlev nOÀuàpvl 0uli:crrn,
aù'tàp 0 aÙ1:e 0uli:crr' 'AYOl-l&I-IVOVI Àeïne cpopi;val,
nOÀÀi;alv VT]aOlal Ka\ "Apyeï nav't\ ciVo.aaelv. (lIiad 2.101-108)
. . . Powerful Agamemnon slood up
holding the sceptre which Hephaestus toiled 10 forge.
Hephaestus gave it to Zeus, son of Cronus.
ln turn, Zeus gave il 10 the messenger Argeiphontes,
and lord Hermes gave it to Pelops, driver of horses.
Pelops in tum gave it to Atreus, shepherd of the people,
and upon dying Atreus left it for Thyestes of the many f1ocks.
ln tum, Thyestes left it for Agamemnon 10 carry,
over many islands and over ail Argos to rule.
12
The sceptre which holds sway over ail Argos is created through the hard
labour of the divine blacksmith at the commision of Zeus himself. The
messenger of the goos delivers it to the founder of the kingliest family, and
from that point on it remains in the royal household, carried by each
successive king. At the middle of each verse (we note the prominent
positioning of the verbs éWKS: and €ÀlI1S:V either before or after the caesura) it
changes hands until it is eventually handed down to the most recent
successor after having traversed a perfectly straight line. The passage ends
•
appropriately with an infinitive suggesting that the pattern continues forever.
The ruling sceptre therefore is not merely a symbol of power, but a
symbol of power as the hereditary prerogative of the ruling family whose
privilege is forever sanctioned by the gods. Thus the Homeric concept of
kingship seems to be incompatible with the notion of power obtained by
usurpation. This is not to say that there are no potential usurpers in Homer.
Indeed the strife between Odysseus and the suitors is a major theme in the
Odyssey. However, the story in itself provides strong deterrents for anyone
who would wish to throw down the sceptred king. The one successful usurper
of power in Homer was Aegisthus who murdered Agamemnon and obtained
power in Mycenae after having wooed the queen Clytemnestra (Od. 3.254-
•
275, 304-310). But his rule was short-lived since the rightful heir Orestes
soon took vengeance. And in the council of the gods Athena speaking for the
epic tradition, exclaims:
KaÎ Àirlv Ks:lvoC; ys: ÈOIKOTI K€lTal oÀÈSpt!l·
lilc; àTlOÀOlTO KaÎ àÀÀoc;, ëmc; TOlaùTa ys: PS:~OI. (Odyssey 1.45-46)
Truly this man lies low in destruction that was his due.
So too may any other be destroyed, who does such things.
We may thus conclude the work done in this section with the suggestion that
the concept of kingship conveyed by the substantive OKl1mOÙ)(oc; is
incompatible with the notion of power obtained by usurpation. If then
13
Archilochus used the ward 'tyranny' ta describe the rule of Gyges, he
probably wished to emphasize that Gyges obtained absolute power in Lydia
by rather illegitimate means, ln what follows we will attempt to strengthen our
argument that Archilochus employed the word 'tyranny' to Gyges' rule, and
that he thought of Gyges as an unconstitutional ruler.
1.4 RING COMPOSITION IN ARCHILOCHUS 19W
"ou !JOl Tà rùyE:W TOÙ nOÀ.uxpuaou !JE:À.E:l
005' E:v"E: nti> !JE: 1;iiÀ.oc;, où5· àya(o!Jal
8E:wV tpya. !JE:yoÀ.TJc; 5· OÙK €P€W Tupavvl50c;.
ànonp08E:v yàp ËaLlV o<p8aÀ.!Jwv €!Jwv"· (Archilochus 19W)
•
"1 do not care about Gyges with ail his gold,
nor has jealousy seized me yet: 1am not indignant at
the actions of the gods. and 1do not desire a great tyranny
for ail this is far away from my eyes."
According to Aristotle the speaker in this poem is Charon, a carpenter, and
Archilochus
is blaming
in
the
persona
of Charon
(ljJE:YE:l
Rht'toric
3.17=1418b23). In our extant lines there is no mention of the carpenter and
no '!JOyce;. Therefore the poem probably continued after the fourth verse As
far as it goes the poem is complete and 1will discuss it as it stands 10
•
ln the first line a person is named, Gyges, usurper of the Lydian throne
and ruler of Lydia
ca.
687-652. It is worth noting at the outset that in section
seven of this chapter we will consider a brilliant argument proposed by
Professor J. S. Clay according ta which the other Arcilochean passage in
which we encounter the word 'tyranny' (fragment 23W) is also about Gyges.
This convincing argument makes it quite probable that the ward tyrant and
the name Gyges are intimately connected in Archilochus. On this basis 1
should like ta hypothesize that Archilochus considered Gyges ta be the
paradigm of the tyrant.
10
For possible reconstructions of the remainder. see FrlInkeI1975.138. and Bumelt 1983.67.
14
The structure then of our quoted poem looks a great deal like ring
composition. In the first line the paradigmatic tyrant Gyges is mentioned, and
in the third, with TUpavvli5oc: the thought comes full circle and thus returns to
Gyges" From this perspective, the entire poem appears to be about Gyges.
His possessions (1) lead to consideration of envy (2). The word é;ijÀOC:
requires a genitive of the person envied, and this is readily supplied by rùyew
in line one'2. 1 wouId suggest that the crucial phrase oùi5' àyalOlJal 8ewv Ëpya
(2-3) also containes a reference to Gyges.
•
Our interpretation seems to be at odds with Iwo standard readings of
this poem. Both Professors D. Young and A. P. Burnett take the expression
8ewv Ëpya to refer simply to the immortality of the gods, which Archilochus'
speaker claims not to envy. This view would give the verb àyalOlJal the
meaning 'to envy', and would have it that that the poem exhibits a priamel
structure in which three valued things, immense wealth, immortal life, and
tyrannical power, are ail rejected for the sake of a fourth valued thing which
wouId appear in the missing Iines 13. The three elements of the priamel would
then be separate; Gyges would be mentioned in the poem only in
hi~
capacity as a wealthy man (not as a tyrant), and would vanish from the poem
after the tirst line.
•
Il seems to me that the above reading stumbles in its interpretation of
the expression 8ewv Ëpya, which, 1 will argue, does not refer merely to the
immortality of the gods, but rather to speciflc actions of the immortals.
Further, 1 would argue that the verb àyaiOllal expresses a feeling of
astonishment and indignation rather than one of envy. Our view essentially
agrees with Professor Frankel's suggestion that the phrase àyalOllal 8ewv
Ëpya expresses a negative response to the 'fabulous good fortune that the
11 On the ring composition compare Archilochus 5W which begins with à,cmi& Iltv, and
whose third line ends wilh Tt 1l001l"ÀEl à,anic; Dc&ivl'l.
12 Cf. Gerber 1970.22.
13
Young 1968.10 and following; and Bume1l1983.66-67.
see
15
gods sometimes allow a man"·. This interpretation does not reject the view
that the poem has a priamel structure. It suggests rather that these verses
also exhibit ring structure: that the three elements of the priamel are closely
connected; and that Gyges is the connecting Iink. Arr:hilochus' speaker
denies that he is affected either by Gyges' goid. or by the divine favour that
Gyges enjoys. or by his tyrannical power. If we provisionally accept this. we
may very prosaically translate the poem as: '1 do not care about the
possessions of Gyges. rich in gold. nor has envy (of him) seized me yet: 1do
•
not feel outraged at the favour that the gods have shown him. nor do 1desire
for myself a great tyranny (such as the one Gyges has). In the next section
we offer an argument in support of our interpretation of the crucial expression
àyaiOlJal gewv êpya.
1.5 .. ArAlOMA1 eEDN EPrA"
The phrase which presents the greatest difficulty in Archilochus 19W is
àyaiOlJCl gewv êpya. In this section we will attempt to elucidate it by
considering usage of the verb àyaiOlJCl and of the expression gewv êpya. In
the next section of this chapter we will support our views by considering
another early poem on tyranny, Solon 33W.
•
The verb àyaiOlJCl is a variant of aYCIIJal which is frequent in Homer but
infrequent in later authors. The verb conveys a wide range of emotional
responses to events or things considcred in some sense great or remarkable
as the linguistic affinity with ayav would suggest. So for instance, in the
memorable Homeric passage known as the T&lXoaKonia, Priam 'marvels' at
the magnificent aspect of his opponent Agamemnon (TOV ~' 0 ytpwv
TtyàaaaTo II. 3.180). Further on in the same passage, Antenor admits that the
Trojan eiders including himself, were at first 'puzzled' at Odysseus' unusual
physical appearance (,Oè5uai'loc; àyaaaàjJe9' clOOc; ioovTec; 3.224). Often the
Achaean army cheers 'in admiration' of a powerful speech (for instance:
,. FrankeI1975.138.
16
ncivTtc; i:niaxov uTtc; 'AXalwv ~ù60v ciyaaa~tVOl àlO~T1CtO~ 9.50-51). On the
otr,er hand, the members of the Embassy were 'stunned' to silence at
Achilles' for::eful rejection of their offer (ciKTlV i:ytvovTO cnwnii
ciyaaaci~tvor ~aÀa
~œov
yap KpaTtpWC; cinttlntv 9.430-431).
The above examples show that the word expresses, more or less, a
sense of astonishment or puzzlement. Often what astonishes also offends. In
such cases the ciya- prefix takes its most forceful meaning of 'in excess' or
'too much', and the verb conveys negative emotional responses to something
•
considered to be excessive or offensive. As Chantraine argues,
àya~al
in this
negative sense is found 'avec un complément de personne au datif et parfois
un complement à f' accusatif, pour exprimer f' ie. ie d'un excès à contenir, à
réprimer"s This will to restrain or punish the excess or offence in question
translates into a variety of negative emotions. LSJ list 'to be envious', 'to be
angry', and 'to be indignant' as possible translations of the word'6, though it
should be kept in mind that the sense of astonishment also carries over from
the positive meaning of the verb. Let us discuss a few examples:
"i:yyÙC; ciVT1P - où C11ea ~aTtùa~tV - , ai K' i:8i:À11Tt
nti8&a8al Kai ~Tt Tl KOTl!l ciycicrTJa8& &KQal'CX;,
OÜV&Ka ci] y&v&i;qll v&tilTaT6c; &ÎlJl ~&8' ilIliv" (lIiad 14.110-112)
•
"The man is near - we shall not look far for him - , if you wish
to listen and not to be each of you shocked wÎth anger
because by birth 1am the youngest among you.•
The speaker, Diomedes, fears that the other members of the council will
consider him to be 'out of line', as we would say in common speech, because
despite his youth he has the nerve to advise his eiders. The sense of àY~Ql
as 'to be shocked' naturally carries over from the sense of astonishment that
we argued the verb conveys when we discussed its positive meaning. But in
the passage we are now discussing it is shown that 'some kind of anger or
'5
'6
Chantraine S.V. àya-,
see LSJ, under the entries aYGllal and ayaio\.lal.
17
resentment' (KOTW: probably a dative of accompaniment) often goes along
with such negative astonishment.
This would help explain why the variant form
àyalo~al.
in its Iwo
appearances (once in Homer. once in Hesiod) before Archilochus, acquires,
as LSJ point out. the sense of 'to be angry or indignant"7. According to
Hesiod, when social injustices, such as theft. adultery, and maltreatment of
strangers and suppliants occur in the city. 'Zeus himself is indignant and in
the end lays a heavy penalty for unjust deeds' ( .. , ZE:ùC: aùToc: àYQlE:Tal, Ê:c: ôt
•
TE:À&UTT]V Ê:pywv àVT' àÔlKWV XaÀ&m,v Ê:nt9l'\KE:V
~OlI3l'\V
Work" :mJ Da,vs 331-
334). The point is that such injustices do not only offend and anger the
injured party, but Zeus as weil. Zeus is moved to indignation'8 and ensures
that wrongdoers will be punished even if the injured party is helpless against
such offenders. In Homer, when Odysseus returned to Ithaca and witnessed
the offences of his maidservants, 'his heart growled inside in his indignation
at their evil deeds' (TOÙ Ê:vôov UÀÔKT&1
àyal~Ê:vou
KaKQ Ê:pya Od, 20.14-16).
Odysseus' state of mind is compared to the fit of an angry dog. The lines that
follow describe Odysseus' urge to kill the maidservants right there and then.'9
Here, then, the element of anger is quite prominent20 .
It comes as a surprise after this that in spite of the force of the above
•
quoted passages LSJ cite Archilochus 19W as the only example where
àyai~Ql
takes the sense of 'to envy'. The editors of the Lexicon were
probably led to this suggestion by the fact that the basic verb
variant form is
àyai~Ql)
ay~al
(whose
is often sean to convey 'envy' and also because in
" 1 point out that 'indignation' is the ward we use to express anger, when we feel that an
angry response is justified.
18 Accordingly, Ir. the Loeb edition of Hesiod, H. G. Evelyn-White translates' ... Zeus
himself is angered'.
19 We note that the urge to punish ollence is precisely the definition of anger (èlpY'!l in
Aristotle: 'Let ange.. be an urge, accompanied by pain, for manifest revenge for a manifest
slight of one's self or one's own, the s1ight being undeserved' (tOTlil Il,! OPY'! 6pa:f;Ie; lJeTa
AÛltl'\c; 'tll.Illlpiae; cpa1vOlJÉV'l<: lilà cpa1VOIJÉv'!v oAlylllpiav Tcilv &ie; aÙTOV il Tcilv aÙToù, Toù
oA1Ylllp&jv!Jil npocniKOYToc; Rhet. 1378a32-33).
20 Thus, quite appropriately. in the Loeb edition of the Odyssey, A. T. Murray translates' ...
in his wrath al their evil deeds'.
18
Archi!. 19W,
ciyaiO~QI
and
~iiÀoc;
are found in close conjunction. Let uS then
examine a parallel passage from Homer in which cïyOjJQI seems to convey
'envy', and where the verb is found in close connection with
~iiÀoc:.
The lines
are part of Calypso's famous castigation of the gods as 'jealous beyond ail
others':
"~X&TÀloi i:cm:, 8eot, ~I1Àll~ovec: i:E;oxov cïÀÀwv,
oi Te 8eaic: ciyciaa8e nap' ciVOpQOlV eùvci~eaeal
~<paolllV ... " (Odyssc:y 5.118-120)
•
"Cruel you are, gods, jealous abcve ail others
since you begrudge goddesses that they should take mortal lovers
openly ....
ln this passage,
it is
~I1Àll~ovec:
ciYQ~al
does not draw specifie attention to the gods' jealousy;
that does this. Calypso notices that the gods take offence
whenever goddesses take mortal lovers. and from this she infers that the
gods are more Jealous than anyone. It seems to be the case that the emotion
that aYOjJal in its negative sense usually expresses (perhaps indignation or
some other kind of anger as the passages we discussed earlier would
suggest) may be fed or aggravated by envy, but there is nothing in this
passage to show that
•
cïya~al
here means 'to envy'. The only real connection
between cïYOjJal and envy here is that the former acts syntactically as a verb
21
of hindering in the sentence as often does cpeoV&W, the usual verb
conveying envy<2, and the meaning is simply 'to begrudge'. Thus cïyOjJQI in
this passage simply takes the basic sense suggested by its etymology, and
hence, as Chantraine argues, conveys the urge to hinder an action that is
considered to be excessive, i.e., out of line.
Thus in Archilochus 19W, the expression
ciyai~al
8ewv epya does not
appear to convey envy and covetousness of the gods' happy Iife (as
:: On constructions of infinitives following verbs of hindering, see Smylh 1920.623-624.
•• In such cases, cp80Vtlll does not necessarily convey 'envy', but simply means 10 be
unwilling', 10 withhold', 10 disallow'. It is true thal Greek cp8ovoc; and our 'envy' are not
entirely coextensive.
19
Professor D. Young argues in his interprellon of thls poem)~3. but rather
expresses the speaker's negative (perhaps indignant) response to specific
actions that the gods have committed. This suggestion appears to be
supported by usage of the expression 8cwv cpya.
For the expression cpya 8cwv we have two parallels. both from Homer
The minstrel Phemius sings 'deeds of men and gods whlch slngers make
famous' (Ë:py'
àv~pWv
8cwv LC La LC KhCIOUOlV
àOI~Ol OJ.\·~~t'.\·
1.338). The
expression also occurs in the context of the great batlle by the shlps. Hector
•
•
and Ajax are engaging in single combat
"EKLWP AïaVLoc; ~opu ~ClhIVOV àYXI napaCITac;
nhT}E;' aopl ~cyahw, aiX~T}C; napa KaUhOV orno8cv
àVLlKPUC; ~. ànapaE;c LO ~i:v TCha~wvloc; Aïac;
nT}h' aÙLwc; cv XClPI KOhOV ~opu, LTlhC ~. àn aÙLou
aiX~T} xahKCITl xa~a~lC; l3o~I3TloC ncoouoa.
yvw ~. Aïac; KaLa 8~ov à~u~ova PlYTlOCV LC
Ë:pya Scwv. 0 pa nayxu ~aXTlC; cm ~Tl~ca KClpC
lcuC; ÙljJll3pc~CLTlC;. TPWCOOI ~C l3ouhcLo VIKTlV. (l/i:JJ 16.113-121)
Hector stood up close to Ajax and struck at hls ash spear
with his own great sword. hltllng behind the spearhead's socket
and slashing it away; Telamonian Ajax uselessly shook
in his hand a lopped spear. and far away from hlm
the bronze spearhead fell echoing to the ground.
And Ajax knew in his heart, and shuddered for knowing
the works of the gods, that high thundering Zeus brought
his battle plan to nothing, and planned victory for theTroJans
ln both cases the expression refers to specific actions allnbuled to the gods.
The minstrel Phemius can sing equally weil about events both on the human
and on the divine sphere. Ajax on the other hand detects the 'work of the
gods' in miraculous good or bad fortune which cannot be otherwlse
explained: his spear breaks at the crucial moment of hls battle agalnst
Hector. This must mean that the gods are favounng the TroJans Simllarly
with Archilochus' speaker, consideration of 'what the gods do' is occasioned
by the thought of Gyges' remarkable success. It would perhaps no! be
23
Young 1968.10.
20
unreasonable to assume that with 9twv i:pya, Archilochus' speaker is
attributing Gyges' fabulous good fortune to the action of the gods. If this be
the case, then, in this context, ciyaiol.lal 9twv i:pya would express a sense of
indignation and astonishment at the excessive good fortune that the gods
have bestowed on Gyges together with a sense of puzzlement at the
beha... :~:...r of the gods in this respect. This, 1think, is what is meant here, and
this reading finds support in other passages in lyric, where tyranny is
considered
•
a
divine gift,
but one which
occasions
puzzlement or
astonishment, even indignation occasioned by the behaviour of the gods2..
We will consider in particular Solon 33W in the next section of this chapter.
ln section seven we shaH conclude our discussion of the main question of
this chapter conceming the early meaning of the word 'tyran!' in the Greek
context.
1.6 SOLON 33W
•
OÙK ë<pu !oÀwv ~aSUcppwv Mi: ~OUÀlitlc; civlip'
i:a9Àèl yèlp 9toù èSlèSovtoc; aùtèc; OÙK i:èSi:~ato.
m:P$aÀcIlv èS' àypav èlyaa9tic; OÙK i:néanao&v IJtya
èSlKtuov, EluIJoù 9' cilJaptfl Kai cpp&vwv cinoacpaÀtic;.
i)9tÀov ycip Kev KpaTi]oac;, TtÀoùTov àcpElovov À~cIlv
Kai tupavv&lJaac; 'A9TJvwv lJoùvov illJépav IJÎav,
ciC7Kèx; ÜCTepov èSeèScip9cu Kcimt&tpicp9c1l ytvoc;.
~4 Conslder for instance Alcaeus 70 LP, a poem oceasioned by an important moment in the
career of Plttacus; his marnage to a woman of the noble famlly of the Penthelidae, who
claimed descent from Penthllus, son of Orestes. With this shrewd, polltlcally expedient
marnage alliance, Plttacus is weil on his way towards tyrannlcal rule in Mytilene, hls greatest
ambition, much to the chagrin of Alcaeus and his party. As Alcaeus emphasizes, Plttacus is
now in a position of such power, that 'he may devour the city as he did at the side of the
[tyrant] Myrsllus' (OOrm:TCI) n6AlV cix; kO! nEllC1 MupaiACI) 8). The poet deplores the 'heart
devouring strife and civil war' (TiIe; 9uIIojl6pcal Aooe; q.upûACI) TE IJQxOe; 10-11) that a mysterious
'some one of the Olympians has aroused' (Tilv ne; 'OAlJIlniCl)v i:vlilpot 11-12). this divinlty's
adions are as puzzling as ils identlty since this Olympian is 'Ieading the people to ruin, but
glving supremacy deslrable to Pittacus' (&ilJov IJi:v tie; ooorov àyCl)v CllITTilkl!l œ ~00le; kOOOc;
tmjpcnov 12-13. On the meaning of kOOOc; as 'supremacy' rather than 'glory', see Kurke
1991.205-207, and Kurke 1993.131-163. In this context Professor Kurke cites also
Benveniste 1973.348, and FrlInkel 1975.80 n.14). Alcaeus expresses his indignation at
Plttacus' suocess by representing him, as we have already noted, as a wild animal which
feeds ltself on the city's substance; also by portraylng Plttacus' delighted supporters as 'vain
braggarts' (cpV.cilvCl)v ... ciAtlJQWV 4). Thus in Alcaeus too we observe that tyrannical power is
represented as a divine gift, but one that occasions puzzlement at the behaviour of the gods,
and outrage at the tyrant's suocess.
21
Solon has proven ta be a shallow thi"ker and a poor decision maker;
look. the gods gave him excellent gifts and he refused them'
1mean, he had surrounded the chase but he didn't pull the great
net. Surely his will failed him. Surely he's lost his mind.
As for myself, 1wish 1could acquire power and abundant wealth
and rule Athens as a tyrant for a single day. and then you
can flay me into a sack and exterminate my offspring.
A quick glance reveals that our quoted lines constitute an excellent parallel
passage ta Archilochus 19W; here, as in Archilochus, tyranny, abundant
•
wealth, the gods, àYOJ.Ial, greatness (Iu:ya 3), even desire (r,9cÀov 5) and
envy (or lack thereof: àcp90vov 5), are ail present. Let us then consider the
circumstances of the poem's composition.
ln the early sixth century Athens was suffering from civil strife, the
perennial plague of the Greek city-states during the Archaic period. In 594,
the year of Solon's archonship, the Athenians offered Solon unlimited
authority with the hope that he could find a solution ta the city's problems
2S
.
Apparently Solon enjoyed not only popular support, but also divine favour.
Plutarch records that Solon at this time had
r~ceived
a Delphic oracle which
said something ta this effect:
~oo IJ&OTJv KaTà vi'la K~CpVTJTliploV epyov cüElUvwv' TlOÀÀol TOI
'A9TJvaiwv èTliKOllpOl. (Plutarch Life of Solon 14.4)
•
Sit in the middle of the ship, setting straight the pilot's task. Many
Athenians will assist you.
Several of Solon's supporters interpreted the oracle as a divine cali ta Solon
to establish himself as tyrant and 'straighten out' the dire Athenian situation
in radical fashion 26 . Solon himself took it as admonition ta establish laws
25
On the date of Solon's reforms. see Wallace 1983.
26 A common Greek attitude, during the politically troubleci period of the Archaie age, was
that the city's problems could only be corrected by the strong arm of a tyran!. Pittacus'
election to tyrannical power in Mytilene certainly renects such an attitude. This possibility
caused great fear in aristocratie circles. Consider for instltnce Theognis' fearful image of the
tyrant as an àviJp WlluVTIiP. a 'straightener' of the hubris rampant in the city (Theognis 39-52;
22
which themselves would rectify the rampant hubris that was threatening to
tear the city asunder.
Among his supporters were many. the nOÀÀo't Kai cpaùÀol as Plutarch
refers to them (Solon 14.6), who were disappointed at Solon's decision since
they thought that they would personally benefit from a Solonian tyranny.
Apparently such "supporters" took a heavily critical position against Solon. In
our quoted fragment the poet gives voice to such a critie.
Solon is more famous for his laws than for his poetry. Nevertheless our
•
quoted verses may be the most inspired thing he ever wrote. Instead of
arguing his own position, Solon brilliantly constructs a critic who develops an
argument against him so exaggerated that it confounds itselt2
7
.
The poem falls into Iwo sections: lines one to four, and then five to
seven. The first part is masterfully constructed. The speaker states his case
from the start; Solon is a fool. But instead of explieitly criticizing Solon for his
refusai to become tyrant, the speaker employs a metaphor from hunting. Only
when we reach the second section are we assured that the 'excellent gift of
the gods' amounts to tyranny and to the abundant wealth that goes along
with it; that the catch is Athens herself; that the net is power (KpaTTiaac; 5),
and that the tightening of the net corresponds to tyrannical rule.
•
It is worth noting that the speaker attributes Solon's failure to establish
himself as tyrant to his own 'astonishment' (ciyaa9e:ic; 3). Here we most
certainly encounter a variation on the ciyaiOlJal 8e:wv ëpya theme; in this case
the prospective tyrant himself is stunned at his very own divine favour.
Closure is brought to the first section of the poem through restatement
of the basic thesis that Solon is foolish, with a quite striking chiastic
correspondence between the first and fourth lines28 :
on this passage, see Nagy 1983). On the Athenian perception of Solon as a potentlal àvip
E~. see McGlew 1993.100.
Z7 For an appraisal of Solon's rtletorical technique in this passage, See Connor 19n.99: also
McGlew.1993102-103.
ZB On this chiasmus. and on the significance of the word Po,ElUcppwv in this passage cf. Gerber
1970.139.
23
f3aeucppwv
elJl.10Ù
cppevtiJv
1
2
1
Correspondence 1-1 is obvious; one thinks deeply in one's CPPl1V, And then,
the elJl.1oc:; as the seat of counsel and decision making nicely corresponds to
f3ouÀ!ielC:;, 'good counsellor'.
After this, the sudden change of subject in line five becomes quite
arresting as it draws attention to the aspiring tyrant's own powerful desire.
Solon does not employ eros or any of its forms, but the abrupt change of
•
•
subject makes the prominently positioned ijeeÀov ... Tupavveuaac:; almost as
powerful as i:pi:w Tupavviooc:; in Archilochus 19W 329 .
Thus both Archilochus and Solon found highly imaginative ways to express the great
desirability of tyranny (especially impressive is Archilochus' representalion of tyrannical
ambition as 'eros). So did Alcaeus who portrays Piltacus as 1his man who seeks supreme
power' (WVTJP OÙToc; ci ~alèllEvoc; TO ~eya KpEToc; Alcaeus 141 LP 3), and descriOOs Pittacus'
success as altended by 'desirable supremacy' (KÙOO<; enTJPaTOv 70 LP 13). Il seems,
paradoxically, that although tyranny in Greece was received with great hatred, many Greeks
would wish to exercise it (we recall from section live of this chapter that tyranny was
considered a divine gift to the tyrant). Leo Strauss explains that this altitude follows from the
structure of the Greek concept of freedom which is strongly linked to the concept of power.
Thus those who exercise tyrannical rule are supremely free, while those under tyrannical rule
are often considered as no OOlter than slaves. On this, see Strauss 1948.20, together with
Connor 1977.98 n.6, and Adkins 1972.68. For a collection of relevant passages, see our
Appendix III on the word ~civapXoc;. In this context, 1 feel it is important to mention that
apparently the desirability of tyranny follows directly from the structure of the Greek value
system. It is weil known that the most powerful Greek tenn of commendalion, àpETT), did not
come specilically to commend moral virtue until relatively late, in the fourth century. In
Homer it mainly commends courage and achievement in battle, but, signilicanlly, also power
and wealth. Thus Agamemnon, as the weallhlest and most powerful king at the camp of the
Achaeans, also a good lighter (though certainly not the oost), easily 'claims that he is by far
the oost of the Achaeans' (no).).ov 6.ptaTOC; 'Axalwv EÙXETal Elval lliad 1.100), a claim with
which wise old Nestor certainly agrees (Iliad 1.277-281). Professer A. W. H. Adkins notes
that from Hesiod onwards, with the invention of money, we have signilicant shifts in the
structure of Greek values. See Adkins 1972.23 and following. One of the consequences of
the invention of money, is that much emphasis is put on the importance of wealth in àpETJi.
As Hesiod emphaslzes 'arete and kudos altend on wealth' (nAoUTQl èS' àpEni Kal Kùè5oc; 6n'lè5Ei
Works :md Days 313). With the appearance of tyranny, great power and fabulous wealth
became available to those who could usurp power in the state, men Iike Gyges in Lydia, or
Iike Cypselus in Corinth. But the tyrant was not only supremely wealthy and supremely
powerful, but also supremely commendable; he enjoyed more àpEni and more 'l1l'ft than
anyone, and his subjects would admire him for il althOugh many would probably hate him
and would consider the establishment of his tyranny to 00 an unjust act. See Adkins
1960.69-70. It is in this sense that in the famous inscription on the tomb of Archedice,
daughter of Hippias, a man Iike Hippias, son of Peisistratus and tyrant of Athens, could
easily 00 described as 1he most outstanding man of his lime in Greece' (avè5po<;
6.ptcnEûoaVToc; ev 'EAAàè5l Tcilv i:cp' i:aU'Toù Semonides 85D. Aristolle, in Rh«.1367b19,
attributes the inscription to the great Simonides of Ceos. Modem scholars however have
29
24
The speaker's argument only breaks down in the final verse; no-one of
course would be flayed alive and suffer the extinction of his line for the sake
of a one day tyranny. And yet in his discussion of this poem Professor W. R.
Connor notes that the desirability of tyranny would make even this speaker's
exaggerated argument plausible: 'Many Athenians ... might have found a
less extreme form of the imaginary critic's objection quite plausible,3Q.
Even the gruesome image of the tyrant tom apart, enhanced through
sound effects produced by heavy repetition of t and r sounds in line seven,
•
does not deviate too much from what a prospective tyrant might expect.
Indeed, both in poetry and in historiography the establishment of tyranny and
the attempt at tyranny were represented as extreme actions that provoked
equally extreme retaliation.
ln Athens particularly there was one recorded attempt at tyranny before
Solon's time. Cylon, an Olympie victor, obtained military aid from his fatherin-Iaw Theagenes, tyrant of Megara, and attempted to seize the Acropolis of
Athens. The effort failed since an Athenian citizen force, led by the powerful
family of the Alcmaeonidae surrounded the troops of the aspiring upstart.
Some of Cylon's men sought asylum at one of Athena's altars, others took
refuge at the temple of the Eumenides. Ali were nonetheless slain, an action
•
for which the clan of the Alcmaeonidae incurred pollution and were
considered accursed 3'. Thus tyranny, an extreme action that oversteps
political boundaries was met with equally extreme retaliation which
overstepped weil established religious boundaries.
doubted Simonides' authorship. See Page 1981.239). Perhaps the phenomenon of tyranny
as weil as the excesses of individual tyrants helped bring into clear relief the limitations of
the arete standard, which eventu<'lIy, in the work of Plata especially, shifted towards
commending moral excellence. But in the Archaic age, the tyrant's way of Iife was
considered ta be the happiest, the most admired, and the most commendable; hence the
desirability of tyranny. The desirabilily of tyranny is the main theme of the present essay.
See our chapter Iwo.
'" Connor 1977.99.
31 The story is told bath by Herodotus and by Thucydides. See Herodotus 5.71, and
Thucydides 1.126.3-11. For more on Cylon, see Crawford and Whitehead 1983.130-132, and
references cited therein.
25
ln jocular spirit, and to conclude this section, we may note that Solon
never established himself as tyran!. and indeed
spèlr~d
himself from flaying
and avoided extinction of his line. His most famous descendant. Plato. bears
strong testimony to the resonance and influence of his ancestor's powerful
image of the flayed tyran!. The Myth of Er, included in the R,·punlic. relates.
among other things, the story of the mythical tyrant Ardiaeus whose soul
underwent terrifying torture in the afterlife for the hideous crimes the tyrant
committed during his lifetime. Plato's words speak for themselves:
•
. . . TOV oi: 'Apolalov Ka! èiÀ~ou~ OUllnooioavTé:~ XEipa~ TE Ka!
n60a~ Ka! KEcpaÀT]V, KaTa13aÀ6vTE~ Ka! tKoElpavTE~, dÀKOV napé! TT]V
60èv tKTè~ tn' àanaÀà6wv KvàmoVTE~ Ka! Tol~ àEl naplOÙOI
CTIlllaivoVTE~, WV ËVEKà TE Ka! OTl Ei~ Tèv TàpTapov tllnEOOÛ\JEVOl
èiYOlVTO. (Republic 615e-616a)
. . . but they tied up the hands and feet of Ardiaeus and others,
and f1ung them and dragged them by the wayside tearing them
asunder on the thomy bushes and signifying to those who passed
by from time to time, for what reason this was done, and that they
would be hurled into the Tartarus.
Notice how nicely Plato's tKOElpavTE~ corresponds to Solon's oEoàp6a1. It is
difficult not to believe that, when writing the tale of Ardiaeus, Plato had his
•
ancestor's poem (Solon 33W) in mind. But the influence of Solon's striking
image of the f1ayed tyrant reached weil beyond the ancient world 32 .
1.7 GYGES IN HERODOTUS AND IN ARCHILOCHUS 23W
Our exploration of the àyalOlJal 6EWV Ëpya theme in the previous two
sections necessitated a detour (one that was worthwhile 1 hope) from our
basic question in this chapter, the question of the early meaning of the word
'tyrant' in the Greek context. We may now retum to our basic inquiry picking
up from the conclusions of section five. There we argued that in Archllochus
19W the word 'tyranny' applies to the rule of Gyges in Lydia, and in fact that
For a discussion of this image in the very last poem lhal G. Seferis published, see our
Appendix 1.
32
26
the whole poem is about Gyges. If we are to determine, then, whether in
Archilochus the word 'tyran!' simply meant 'king', or whether it applied to
rulers who obtained absolute power in defiance of the previously existing
constitution, we are obliged to consider in detail the circumstances that led to
Gyges' establishment as ruler of Lydia.
Herodotus (1 .6-14) offers a lengthy account of the story of Gyges, weil
worth considering. In short Gyges, founder of the dynasty of the Mermnadae,
of which the fifth and last member was Croesus, obtained power in Lydia by
•
ploUing with the queen and murdering king Candaules, the last member of
the Heraclid dynasty which monopolized power in Lydia for twenty-two
generations, five hundred and five years in total (!), 'son succeeding father'
(llaTc; Ilapà llaTpOC; èVoeKOiJevOC; Tilv àpxtiv 1.7.4). Herodotus proceeds to say
that the Lydians were apalled (oelvov èl1010ÙVTO 1.13.1) at what had
happened to their king and were in arms, ready to Iynch the murderer. But
they agreed with those who came in support of Gyges (cnaoIC'lTal 1.13.1) to
let the Delphic oracle decide whether Gyges would stay as king, or whether
power would be returned to the Heraclidae. The oracle surely enough
confirmed Gyges as king. Having tnus established himself in power, Gyges
promptly sent lavish offerings to Delphi, including 'immense amounts of gold'
•
(Xpuaov ëmÀeTov 1.14.1).
There are a few things worth noting in this account. First the long,
unbroken chain of succession of the Heraclid rulers. This makes the
Heraclidae quite akin to our Homeric sceptre-bearing kings of section three,
in that their rule is hereditary and continuous. The achievement of Gyges, to
break this long chain and rule the most prosperous kingdom of the time, in
addition to offering a splendid treasure to the Delphic oracle, must have
become legend in Greece at the time. Thus considering that Archilochus'
contemporary Semonides distinguishes between 'tyrant' and 'sceptre-bearing
king', the latter term expressing strictly hereditary kingship, there is a
possibility that the connotation of 'usurper' may have been present in
27
Archilochus' usage of the word 'tyran!' as weil. The following lines from
Archilochus 23W appear to support this view33 :
nOÀLv oe Tal1rl'lV , , , , i:menpi:<p€al
OÙ'rOL nOT' èivop€<; i:~€nopel'laav, au oe
vùv €IÀ€<; aix~li Ka! ~i:y' i:~l'lPW KÀ€O<;,
K€ivl'l<; èivaaa€ Ka! TUpaVVIl'lv èX€' (Archilochus 23W 17-20)
This city, . , you roam
never before have men sacked, but you
now conquered it with your spear and won great glory
Rule it and hold the tyranny,
•
'Ei<; aix~li' suggests that tyranny is, or can be, obtained by violence.
Further note that men have never conquered this city. A weil established
status quo has been disrupted.
We may draw even more conclusions if we consider the details of the
story of Gyges and the Queen as related by Herodotus, a story
w~iich
reads
like a fable. As it were, king Candaules was very much in love with his wife,
and wished to prove her surpassing beauty to the chief officer of the royal
bodyguard, who was none other than our friend Gyges. The king urged his
trusty officer to contrive a plan to see the queen in the nude, on the grounds
that 'eyes are better witnesses than ears' (OlTa yàp TUVXàv€1 ov9pWnolCnv
•
OTttaTOT€PQ
6<peaÀ~wv
1.8.2). To his credit Gyges was quite reluctant to do
so, and agitatedly expressed his moral reservations. But alas the king
strongly insisted. Seeing that he could not avoid the deed, Gyges eventually
consented. Thus in the night our hero stole behind the bedroom door and
spied on the queen as she undressed. It soon proved unfortunate for
Candaules thatthe perceptive lady did not fail to notice her observer Gyges.
Intelligent as she was, she quickly realized exactly what had happened.
Without wasting too much time she called on Gyges in the following morning
for a private conference, and gave him Iwo choices; either to murder the king,
defend her honour (Herodotus emphasizes that among foreigners, as
33
1quote this fragment in its enlirely further on in Ihis section.
28
opposed ta Greeks, it brings great shame ta be seen in the nude, even if you
are a man), and rule Lydia at her side, or else ta die himself as punishment
for his offence. Reasonably enough Gyges chose ta live. and the following
night he hid at the same place, waited till the king was fast asleep, and then,
armed with a dagger provided by the queen. promptly murdered him.
Herodotus concludes the narrative with the following words:
•
.. , anoKTclvac; aùTov i:C7)(C Ka! Tl1V yuvalKa Ka! Tl1V l3aOlÀClrlV rÛ'{TlC;,
TOÙ Kai APX[ÀoXoc; 0 naplOC; KaTa TOV aùTOv Xpovov YCVOIJCVOC;
ÈnCIJVT10e1l (Herodotus 1.12.2)
Now the relative TOÙ at the beginning of the second line can refer ta Gyges
alone (in which case it is in the masculine), or ta the story as a whole (then it
is in the neuter). Further ÈnCIJVT10el1 can certainly mean simply 'he
mentioned'. If this is the meaning here, then Herodotus is probably citing
Archilochus 19W. But Professor Gregory Nagy's recent work on words with
root mna- in Herodotus convincingly shows that ÈmlJVaOlJal in the context of
Herodotean historia takes the meaning of 'ta continue the memory (of an
event)'. This means that the relative TOÙ probably rel ers ta the whole story34.
Therefore Archilochus may have composed a longer poem on Gyges on
which Herodotus based his version of the tale of Gyges, Candaules, and the
•
Queen. This suggestion is supported by a late Roman metrician, Juba, who
reports that Archilochus indeed wrote an extensive poem on the story of
Gyges
35
.
Let us keep this in mind as we now turn ta take a closer look at
Archilochus 23W of which the intelligible part we quote here in its entirety:
. . . . . . . . . Tl1V o' Èy<ÏlvTOIJcl{361l[l1V'
"yuva[l], qxlTlV IJ€V Tl1V npOc; avl3p<ilnw[v KaKl1V
1JT1 TCTpOIJl1 vI1e; 1J110&V' ciIJ<pi o' cÜ<pp6vn,
èlJoi IJCÀT10CI' [elUIJoV ÏÀaov TiS&o,
èe; ToùTo OT1 TOl Tiie; avoÀl3il1e; l>OK[E:W
T;KClV: avtlP TOI OClÀOc; àp' èqxnv6Il11V[.
OÛjo' oi6c; CÏJJ' Èyw [O)ÙToc; oùl>' oiwv ano.
èniC1TOIJai TOI TOV cpIÀi:oVTQ IJÈ:V cptMl'v.
34
Nagy 1990.289.
this. see Bumett 1983.67. and Clay 1986.11-12.
35 On
29
TOV o'
&XepO~ &XeOIP&IV
TC Koi KOKO
IJUPlJll~. ÀOY~ vuv Tt!>O' àÀlleClll nàpa.
nOÀlV oi: TOUTllV .... &mOTpC<jlCOI
OlITOI nOT' avopcc; &~CnOpellOOV. OÙ oi:
vùv ciÀcc; oiXIJf1 Koi lJi:y' &~llPW KÀi:OC;.
KCIVllC; àvooac Koi TUPOVVLllV i:XC'
nOÀÀOîOlellV ~llÀWTOC; àvepwnwv i:OCQl". (Archilochus 23W 6-21)
. . . and 1answered her:
"Lady, of gossip from men that is evil
do not be afraid at ail: at nighttime
1shalltake care of things; be of cheerful heart.
To this point of wretchedness do you think
1have arrived? 1would appear to be a base coward.
1am not that kind of a man, nor are my forebears .
You see, 1know how to be a friend to a friend
and how to hate an enemy...
ant(?) There is truth in the word.
As for this city that you roam
never before have men sacked it, but you
now conquered it with your spear and won great glory
Rule it and hold the tyranny.
You shall be envied by many men".
•
Since this poem is obviously adres!'ed to a woman, we may weil wonder who
the lady is who sacks cities, wins k/eos, and sets herself up as a tyrant ln a
relatively recent paper, Professor Jenny Strauss Clay compellingly argues
that the lady in question is none other than the queen of Lydia, and that the
•
speaker in the poem is, yes, Gyges
36
.
For the details of the brilliant argument
1refer my reader to Professor Clay's paper. 1will be content here to note that
with this insight, much that would otherwise be quite unclear now makes very
good sense, and we need not wonder where Herodotus got the tale; the
<pémc; KOKTt of verse nine evidently refers to the embarrassing gossip the
queen expects due to her exposure. Gyges, who probably has just been
confronted with the ultimatum "either kill the king or die yourself', begins by
giving reassurances. '1 shall take care of it in the night' (10-11) refers to the
actual murder which, we recall from Herodotus, took place at night-time when
36
Clay 1986.7-17.
30
the king was fast asleep. Then Gyges appears to be defending himself
against actual or expected charges that he is too low-born and too much of a
coward actually to go through with the plan. But he is determined to do il. He
has been offered <pIÀ[a, presumably the queen's hand in marriage as weil as
the tyranny, and he knows how to prove his love to a friend. In fact, he
presents the deed as already done, and credits the queen with il.
One can hardly fail to notice that Archilochus portrays Gyges as an
exceptionally gitted speaker; through the action of the poem the expected
•
'bad report' or 'evil gossip' (<panv ... Kalulv 9) has been transformed into a
'good report'. 'fame, glory'
(KÀi:OC;
19) in words appropriate to
21). These last five lines are especially clever;
~l1ÀW1:0C;
';1
warrior (17-
is both a masculine
and a feminine form, which applies both to the queen and to himself. In verse
eighteen Gyges reports that 'men have never before captured this city but
you now have conquered il', which applies to himself since no-one before
had either conquered Lydia or usurped the throne, and, of course it very
nicely applies to the queen; no men had ever conquered the city, but now a
woman has' ln praising the queen, Gyges portrays her as an image of
himself; indeed he is praising his own achievement and he is weil aware of
how unprecedented it is.
•
1.8 CONCLUSION: THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'TYRANT' IN
ARCILOCHUS
On the basis of the work done in the previous sections, we may
conclude that both of Archilochus' poems on tyranny apply this term to the
rule of Gyges, and that fragment 23W in particular offers an account of how
Gyges obtained his rule. This account represents Gyges' rise to power as a
violent and unprecedented event, and Herodotus adds that this event
involved the overthrow of the ruling family that legitimately reigned in Lydia
for several centuries. The suggestion then that the word 'tyranny' in
Archilochus did not apply to legitimate, that is hereditary, kingship, but to rule
31
obtained in defiance of the previously existing constitution, is beginning to
appear quite compelling, especially if we consider that Archilochus'
contemporary Semonides distinguishes between tyrants and legitimate.
hereditary sceptre-bearing kings.
There is one remaining consideration that would resist our suggestion.
The word 'tyran!' is certainly of Anatolian origin, and perhaps, as the ancient
etymologists thought. originated in Lydia 3, Possibly it was a usual Lydian
word for 'king' and perhaps the Lydian notion of kingship allowed for power
•
obtained either by inheritance or by usurpation. In such a case. Archilochus
may accordingly have used it in the sense of 'Lydian king· 38 .
To remove this possibility we are compelled to inquire into whether the
Lydians themselves considered Gyges to be a 'king'. Fortunately we do
possess information as to what the Lydians thought on the matter. The late
historian Nicolaus of Damascus reproduces from the work of Xanthus. a
Lydian historian, an account of Gyges' rise to power. Nicolaus' narrative
begins as follows:
'AouàTTI1<: Cl &C7)(aT~ (3aOlÀ&lJ<; i\uowv KaT&Àùel1 TpOn(&) TOIOÙTl!l ...
(Nicolaus Damascenus fr. 47.1)
•
Adyattes [= Candaules). the last king of the Lydians, was
overthrown in the following manner ...
Commenting on this passage Professor Robert Drews notes that elsewhere
Nicolaus uses the terms (3aOlÀ&ù<: and TùpaVV~ interchangeably when
referring to Eastern kings, and indeed that Nicolaus frequentiy applies
See noIe 3 of lhis chapler.
Il is imponanl however 10 noIe lhal lhis inlerprelalion wauld be al odds with whal is
probably lhe mosl reliable elymology of lhe ward Tlipavvoc;. Professer D. Hegyi compellingly
argues lhallhe ward originally derived from lhe Lycian ward tem, meaning army. See Hegyi
1965.316-318. This is nollhe only possible derivalion (see our note 3 to this chapter). but it
has proven 10 be a useful one. Professer Roben Drews adds historical considerations to
Hegyi's Iinguislic argument. and quile convincingly argues that the ward 1yrant' was tirs!
applied in Analolia. and laler in Greece. to rulers who obtained power by force. most olten
wilh lhe aid of an epikouros military force. See Drews 1972.129-144. Our own argument.
which is based on philological examination of the eaniesl appearances of the word 1yrant' in
Greek lexts, is meanllo complement Professer Drews' hislorical argument.
37
38
32
13aOlÀcù<; to Gyges and his successors Drews proceeds to infer that 'the
reference to Adyattes as "the lasl basileus" of Lydia can be explained, so far
as 1can see, only on the assumption that the Lydian Xanthus, whose L.vdi:Jca
was Nicolaus' ultimate source, was more careful about his use of basileus
and tyrannos'39, We therefore conclude with Professor Drews that this
fragment of Nicolaus of Damascus 'suggests that in the tradition of the
Lydians themselves, their last real king was Gyges' predecessor' (Drews'
italics)40.
•
If the Lydian tradition did not recognize Gyges as a real 'king' there is
no reason why Archilochus should have recognized him as such. We
suggest therefore that Archilochus did not apply the word 'tyran!' as a
synonym of king with a different metrical value. Our discussion in this chapter
strongly suggests that in his usage of the word 'tyran!' Archilochus was very
much in harmony with Solon, Alcaeus, and Theognis who applied it to rulers
who obtained power in the state in defiance of the previously existing
constitution.
We complete our discussion of this chapter by noting that Archilochus'
portrayal of Gyges as a clever and ambitious man who obtained absolute
power and acquired immense wealth in the face of the pre-existing system (in
•
this case the monarchy of the Heraclidae), and in violent circumstances,
attracting the envy of many others, mirrors the experience of tyranny in many
Greek cities, where the tyrant would be the emerging victor of a power
struggle. So for instance Alcaeus, writing a few decades after Archilochus,
would reserve the term 'king' for Zeus (13aOlÀcuc; Alcaeus 296 LP 3; 387 LP),
and would apply Tlipavvoc; to Pittacus, a shrewd and ambitious man who, in
the context of violent power struggles, managed to override the claims to
power of the Mytilenean aristocratie families, and winning public support,
succeeded in being 'set up' as absolute ruler (&CTrciaavTo Wpavvov A1caeus
39
40
Drews 1972.137 n.31.
Drews 1972.137.
33
348 LP 2) in Mytilene, achieving 'desirable supremacy' (KulScx: i:TtT1PQTOV ïO
LP 13: cf, Archilochus 19W 3: i:P&W Tupa VV1i5cx:)", Thus not only IS
Archilochus' usage of the terms TupavviC; and TUpaVV111 in agreement with tha!
of other early authors who also used these terms. but also his portrayal of the
Lydian tyrant Gyges is very much in harmony with the earliest portrayal of a
Greek tyrant, that of Pittacus by Alcaeus,
•
•
4' Another similarity between Piltacus and Gyges: Pillacus made his decisive step towards
tyrannical power by marrying into the house of the Penthelidae who were believed 10 be
descendants of Agamemnon, and who held exclusive rule in Mytllene (Aristotle, ln
1311b 23 and following, refers to them as a !laOlÀlKl1 OOVQOTC,Q, a 'royal dynasty') belore the
other noble families asserted their own claims to power, Just as Gyges obtained power after
having contracted an alliance with the queen of Lydia. 50 Pillacus con5Olidated his aulhority
in Mytilene through alliance with a woman from the royal Mytilenean clan, Alcaeus further
emphasizes that Piltacus is KQKOnQTpiOO~, 'of ignoble descenl' (see fragments 67 LP 4, 75
LP 12, and 348 LP 1), Similarly, in Archilochus 23W 13, Gyges is compelled to defend his
lineage. Professor J. S, Clay suggests that in line 16 the supplement ~u is not correct, She
offers an excellent argument for Mawl'l!; = MtP\lv~. the lamily name of Gyges, wh,ch means
'talcon', Iiterally lhe Seizer' (!), See Clay 1986,13-17,
",,1.
34
CHAPTER 2. TYRANNY AND THE EVE
1 wish to speak about sight and vision. In Greek
culture, "'seeing"' had a privileged status. It was
valued to the point of occupying an unparalleled
position in the range of human capabilities.
Jean-Pierre Vemant
2.1 INTRODUCTION: THE EVE AND THE EMOTIONS
•
ln this chapter, our exploration will again take Archilochus 19W as its
point of departure. This time we will focus on the implications of the fourth
verse which balances out the other three and explains the claims made
therein. So far we have seen that tyranny was indeed the object of the most
eager and agressive desire; that its acquisition was widely considered as a
divine blessing; that tyranny provoked powerful emotional responses of envy
and indignation and was met with violent opposition from the very start.
While calling into attention the above mentioned aspects of tyranny, and
explicitly listing the bitter emotions that Gyges' sucœss was likely to cause,
Archilochus' speaker emphatically denies that the tyrant's good fortune has
any emotional grip on him. His reason is that he does not see it with his eyes.
•
How seriously are we to take this reasoning? The structure of the poem,
at least, suggests that verse four ments close attention. Structurally, the
poem falls into Iwo parts, verse four being the second. The considerably
shorter length of the second part strongly emphasizes the final verse drawing
attention to the possibility that vision somehow informs envy, outrage, end
even eros. It seems that Archilochus' speaker would perhaps not be as
unaffected by tyranny as he claims to be if he were visually exposed to its
manifestations.
1will go on to explore this question that we have encountered on the
relation belween vision and the emotions of envy and eros, insofar as such
35
an exploration can shed light on Archilochus' poem and can contribute to an
understanding of concepts linked to tyranny,
ln the following section we will focus on the unpleasant emotion of envy,
ln the remainder of this chapter, the question of the connection between ercs
and the eye will be examined in the context of a larger, for lhis study, issue;
the relation between erotic desire and ambition for power, an issue broughl
out by Archilochus' metaphorical expression èpwc; Tupavvlooc;,
By way of introducing our argument, we may consider an insightful and
•
relevant observation that Francis Bacon made in his essay Of Em·y. Two
aspects of this passage will concem us here, First, its attention on envy and
aspects of vision; and second, its identification of vision as an area in which
the emolions of love and envy sadly fi:1d common ground':
There be none of the affections which have been noted 10
fascinate or bewitch but love and envy; they both have vehement
wishes, they frame themselves readily into imaginations and
suggestions, and they come easily into the eye, especially upon
the presence of objects which are the points that conduce to
fascination if any such thing there be.
F. Bacon's remark, that envy and love altain an edge when the 'fascinating'
object is visibly present, agrees with, and easily follows from, Archilochus'
•
portrayal of his speaker as largely unaffected by envy of the tyrant and by
desire for a tyranny, so long as the manifestations of tyranny are absent from
his sight (ànonpoElev èl<p8aÀIJ<IlV êlJ<Ilv Archil.19W 4) ln the next section we will
argue that Bacon's insight reflects ancient Greek beliefs as evidenced by
texts from lyric and tragic poetry, philosophy, and oratory.
2.2 ENVY AND THE EVE
The question of envy and vision usually arises in connection with
beliefs in the so called 'evil eye', beliefs that envious individuals can harm
, This passage is quoted in Walcol 1978.n.
36
others through their hostile glance. The evil eye, and in general the active
participation and power of the eye in envy, are topies weil beyond the scope
of the present discussion which is solely concerned with the ability of vision
to stir envy in the beholding subjed. So 1 will confine myself to one relevant
remark. The passage from F. Bacon that we quoted above continues: '... the
times at which the stroke or percussion of the envious eye doth most hurt,
are when the party envied is beheld in glory or triumph for that sets an edge
upon envy'. This belief that an envious eye has the ability to cast malignant
•
influences on envied persons when it beholds them in their glory certainly
lends support to the point we are making, that envy is at its strongest when
the object of envy, 'what fascinates', is visibly presene.
We can find convincing evidence in a variety of texts, that the Greeks
also held such a belief. 1 note at the outset that in our sources we shall
encounter, in addition to
~i')ÀOC;,
the other Greek word for envy, cp8ôvoc;. We
may thus begin by considering the overlap between the two concepts.
Attempts to distinguish the two prove as difficult as any attempt to
distinguish 'jealousy' and 'envy' in English. Aristotle, a philosopher interested
in precise definitions, attempted such a distinction between ~iiÀoc; and
cp8ôvoc; in the context of his discussion of the emotions in the second book of
•
the Rhetoric. Both are defined as 'pain' (Àlim)) occasioned by the presence in
others of esteemed goods (2.10.1 =1387b, 2.11.1 =1388a), but the two
emotions represent different responses to this pain; those affected by ~iiÀoc;
wish to possess for themselves goods that are admired in others, while those
afflicted by cp8ôvoc; resent others' good fortune. It foliows that ~iiÀoc; is a noble
~ If interested in this topie, consult Walcot 1978.n and following. Professor Walcot's study of
the conneetion between envy and the 'evil eye' includes a discussion of a very entertaining
passage from Plutarch's 'Table Talk' {Morolia 5.7.880c-683bl in which a Iively band of
educated gentlemen attempt, among other things, to arrive at a rational explanation of this
phenomenon of IlaClKavia. One of the participants comes up with a Democritean theory of
particles of envy {Il. We will have cause to retum to this passage in section four where we
will discuss the conneetion between desire and vision.
3 Il is in this sense, for instance, that Agamemnon fears 'lest some envious eye strikes me
from afar' at the moment of his pompous retum to his palace at Mycenae (j1it ne; np6alll9f:v
Ô\llJaroc; 1laA00lp96voc; Aeschylus Agamemnon 947).
37
affection characteristic of the 'good' (èm€lK€lc; [2.11.1 =1388a]), an impulse to
achieve following the example of the successful. and in this sense the word
itself corresponds to our English 'emulation'; on the other hand cpeovoc;
represents the will to deprive others of their good fortune, and hence is
clearlya vice characteristic of the 'base' (cpaùkol [2.11.1 =1388a]).
This is quite an admirable distinction borne out of the frequenlly positive
connotations that ~ilkoC; has in actual usage". Yet it does not always hold,
and the overlap belween the Iwo concepts is most evident, significanlly, in
•
the texts that date back from Archilochus' time and earlier. Note for instance
that in Homer, it is the
~i'lkCX;,
not the <pSOvcx;, of the gods that is intent on
depriving goddesses of the company of mortal men (Odyssey 5.118-123). And
in Archilochus himself, the speaker, who with apparent defiance claims that
he is not yet 'overcome' by
~i'lkCX;
of Gyges (19W 2), does not give
particularly noble connotations to the ward ~i'lkCX;. Hesiod prefers ta draw the
distinction within the concept of ~i'lkCX; itself, which often appears 'with a
scowling face' and 'delights in evils' (crruy€p<ÂlTlTlc:, KQKOXapTCX; Works & Days
195-196), while at other times can provide a healthy stimulus for honest
achievement (Works & Da.vs 20-26). For the purposes of the present study
~i'lkcx; and <pSOVCX; will be treated roughly as synonymss.
•
Sa much then for Greek terms expressing envy. But we may return to
Aristotle's definitions of ~i'lkCX; and cp86vcx; in the Rheroric, to discuss another
point of common ground belween the Iwo concepts, a seemingly insignificant
detail, which will nevertheless prove crucial ta our argument. Aristotle
emphasizes that bath ~i'lkcx; and cp86vcx; are felt when the success of others
becomes 'manifest' (qxnVOIltVT]). Specifically, ~i'lkCX; is felt 'at the manifest
presence of esteemed goods' (èni qxnvOIltvn napouai~ àyaewv èVTiI,llllV
[2.11.1 =1388aJ), and <pSOvcx; similarly 'at manifest good fortune consisting in
"For a lis! of relevant passages and discussion, see Kurlle 1991.123-124.
5 For further discussion of the overtap between the Iwo Greek words for envy see Walcol
1978.1 and following. Also Bulman 1992.6-8.
38
the already mentioned goods' (CIlI E:ùllpay(a CPOlvO\JCVl1TWV E:lPl1\JCVWV aya8wv
[2.10.1 =1387b])
The participle cpalvo\JE:VOc; especially in the neuter nominative plural (Ta
cpalVO\JE:Va) is an important word in philosophy, especially in the work of Plato
and in a long tradition preceeding him, which aimed to distinguish the world
of 'appearances' or 'unreflective beliefs' (Ta CPOlVO\JE:Va) from the eternal truth
of 'things as they are' (Ta CVTWC; CVTa) which underlies the apparent
6
.
There
are no such connotations in Aristotie's usage here. Aristotie does not
•
question the value of the 'esteemed goods' that his society honours and
which include 'wealth, abundance of friends, public office and the like'
(IlÀOÙToc;, Kal lloÀucplÀia, Kal QpXal Kal cao TOlauTa [2.11.2=1388b]), but is
solely concerned with their conspicuous presence (Ilapouaia).
Hence
cpalVOIJE:Voc; here certainly does not mean 'apparent', implying 'unreal' or
'questionable', but takes a stronger sense as a synonym of cllcpavlic;. Indeed,
commentators appear, generally, to agree that cpalVO\JE:Voc; in this context
acquires the strong meaning of 'manifest to the senses'. In the most recent
commentary on the Rhetoric, W. Grimaldi equates qxnVOIJE:VOV and aia811Tév
in the context of Aristotie's work on the emotions7 , while the venerable, and
still standard, commentary of E. M. Cope glosses CP01VQllCVn as 'manifest,
•
conspicuous, evident,a, and 'visible or evident,g. Aristotle himself offers
valuable commenlary on his own usage of cpalVÔllE:Voc; in his treatment of the
parallel emotion of pily. He defines pitY as 'pain' (again ÀÛm]) felt when
undeserved misfortune becomes 'manifest' (qxnVQIlcv'!l [2.8.1=1385b]), and
then proceeds to argue that public speakers can be successful in inducing
pitY if they supplement their words with appropriate gestures, clothing etc., so
as to make the misfortunes they are relating 'manifest' by bringing them
'before
the
very
eyes'
of the
audience
(npè
6IlllélTwv
1l00oùvT&c;
aOn "phenomena" in Aristolle and in earlier Greek philosophy, see Nussbaum 1986240-263.
7 Grimaldi 1988.136-137.
aCope 1Sn.10.
9 Cope 1Sn.12.
39
[2.8.14=1385b] , cv ocpSaÀlJoie; CPQlvolJCVOU TOÙ naSoue; [2.8.16=1386a]). It
follows then that it is sight of undeserved misfortune that causes the
strongest feelings of pity.
Translating the argument to the case of envy, we may conclude that
according to Aristotle, envy is most strongly felt when the good fortune of the
envied party is either visible or made visible. That this relation between envy
and vision represents a commonly held Greek belief we may confirm by
inspecting two relevant passages. Let us consider for instance an interesting
•
fragment from a lost tragedy of Euripides, in which the speaker searches for
the origin, and identifies three loci, of envy:
Tie; opa IJrlTT]P ft nàTT]p KaKov IJcya
13poToie; &cpuac TOV ouawvUlJov cp6Ovov;
noù Kal nOT' OiKci aWlJaTCX:; Àaxwv IJCPCX:;;
cv xcpaiv ft anÀàyxvolcnv ft nap' OlJlJaTa; (Euripides fr. 11 TGF)
Who then was the mother and who the father that brought about
a great evil among mortals, foui named envy?
Which part of the body did it receive as its lot, where is its home?
ln the hands, in the vitals, or at the eyes?
It is not very difficult to discem the significance to envy of the bodily parts
identified in the final verse. Envy goes hand in hand with a desire to deprive
•
others of their enviable possessions, and the hands are precisely a symbol of
that desire. The reference to the <rnÀayxva probably reflects ancient
physiological beliefs that bitter emotions in general stir the blood and other
fluids around the vital organs'o. Finally, and most importantly for the present
discussion, the eyes are prominently mentioned at the very end of the
passage as the sensory locus where envy is most strongly stimulated".
We can fully convince ourselves of this by considering a quite
remarkable passage from a late author in which the sight of a neighbour's
'0 Consider for instance Aristotle's comment that natural philosophers associate anger with 'a
boiling of the blood and surging of heat, round the heart' (~tOlv TOÙ ncpi TT'lV K~av aÏjlaTOC;
Kai 9cIlIJ0ù De A.nima 403b).
" Cf, Cope 1877.80-81.
40
fine house occasions an envious character to reflect on the relative strength
of hearing and sightto stir envy:
clIJu5pàv excl Tà wTa TT]V ~ûn'lv, 5là 5i: TWV èlJlJàTWV
KclTCIOIV cie; TT]V Kap5iav. (Libanius DecJam. 30.53)
è~clà
TIC; è5ûv'l
The affliction is mild on the ears, but when it comes in through the
eyes, the pain is sharp and goes straightto the heart.
The point could not have been made more clearly; mere report of another's
fortune is not Iikely to provoke as strong a feeling of envy as actual visible
•
perception will. This is also what is implied in the words of Archilochus'
character; he has obviously heard of Gyges' remarkable wealth, but he has
'not been seized by envy yel' (ou5' clÀ& n<il IJ& ~il~oe; 19W 2), notthat is 50
long as he does not have to see it with his eyes,
At this point our argument on envy is complete, But we may conclude
this section by approaching a famous passage from Hesiod's Works & Days
which illustrates several of the points we have been making, ln the lines that
follow Hesiod describes a kind of rivalry (tPle;) that he considers beneficial:
iiT& Kai clncl~QlJ6v n&p 6IlWc; i:ni tpyov tY&IP&V.
&ie; tT&poV yàp Tie; T& illwv tpyOlO xaTi~&1'2
n~oUcnov, Oc; OTl&OO&IIlCV àPliJIl&Val tillc <pUt&U&IV
olK6v T' &u 9i:09al' ~TJ~ol11& T& y&iTOVa y&iTWV
&ie; cilp&voc; OTl&OOOVT" àya9T] 5' "EpIe; iillc I3poT010iv.
Kai K&PQIJ&ùc; K&PQIJ&l KOT&&1 Kai T&KTOVI Ti:KTwv
Kai mwxac; mwxC!i q>9ovi:&1 Kai àOlllac; àOlllC!i. (Works & Days 20-26)
This one stirs even the idle to work.
For a man grows eager to work when he sees another,
a rich man, who hurries to plough and plant and put
his household into good order; for a neighbour is emulous of his
neighbour as he hurries after wealth; this rivalry is good for men.
And potter is resentful of potter and carpenter of carpenter,
and, similarly, beggar is envious of beggar, and singer of singer.
1~ Cf. other MS reading XQti~"'v. On the difficullies of the tex!, see Wesl's comment ad /OC.
41
Again here
~li~oc;
is stirred by vision and its effects are quite powerful: even
the idle are made to work. This is a characteristic example of
~li~oc;
in the
good sense of emulation. But as the subsequent inclusion of pro"arbs on
cpSovoc; and KOTOC; ('smouldering resentment') 13 indicate. even the most
honourable emulous response to the good fortune of others is not always
completely free of distasteful feelings of envy.
2.3 TYRANNY AND EROS: AN INTRODUCTION
•
'1 do not desire a great tyranny'
(~cy<i~llC;
i5' oÙ!< epew Tupavvli5oc; Archil.
19W 4). So claims Archilochus' speaker. What 1find most striking about the
statement is the use of eros to describe tyrannical ambition. For wnile the
Greeks could conceivably use êpwc; to express desire for any object in the
objective genitive, it appears in fact that usage was far more limited. Indeed,
as our English borrowings 'erotic' and 'eroticism' would suggest, their ancient
Greek ancestor applies mainly to sexual desire, and any other usage, while
not rare, is certainly striking and merits close attention.
The above statement requires, of course, some qualification. For it
appears that in Homer, eros could easily express, in a natural way, not only
•
sexual love, but other kinds of desire as weil. In a very moving passage,
Priam is willing to risk his Iife in his effort to enter the camp of the Achaeans
in order to 'satisfy his desire for lamenting' (yOeu
e~
êpov cillY lIiad 24.227)
over the body of his hapless son Hector. Characleristic also are the
passages where eros is applied to desire for war and battles. For example,
Nestor severely castigates those who would 'desire horrible war among their
own people' (ÔC; TloÀ4Iou êPOTOl eTlli5llllioo KpuO&VToc; lIiad 9.64); and when
Achilles finally decides to bring his Myrmidon forces back to the field, he
reminds his men that 'the time has now come 1 for the great deed of battle
'3
On this translation of KOToc;
see Stanford 1983.31.
42
which you so eagerly desired ail this time' (vùv <5t nttpaVTal ' tpuÀom<5oc; IJtya
f.pyov, f.11C; TO npiv y' tpo&o8& [Il. 16.208-209]), On the other hand, an
indignant Menelaus shouts out to the warlike Trojans that there are other
kinds of desire than eagerness for war He proceeds to list several objects of
eros: 'sleep, and love-making, and sweet singing, and blameless dancing,
desire for which one is more delighted to satisfy than desire for war (ünvou
Ka! tplÀOTI1TOC; IlJoÀnl1C; T& yÀUK&P';C; Ka! OIJÙIJOVOC; 0PXI18IJoTo, 1 TWV ntp TlC; Kai
IJciÀÀov i:tM&Tal i:~ f.pov &iVal 1 ii nOÀtlJou li. 13.636-639). And finally, the
•
Homeric heroes often 'satisfied their desire for food and drink' (noO'lOC; Kai
t<511TùoC; i:~ f.pov f.VTO li. 1.469)'·.
Let us compare these examples with other passages from Homer in
which eros is found in the sense of sexual desire particularly. Paris, for
instance, confesses to Helen that 'never before has desire so enfolded my
wits as now' (où ycip nw nOTt IJ' <00& y' f.PWC; tpptvac; ÔIltp&KÔÀUljl&V li. 3.442).
And, in a memorable line, Homer describes the suitors' response to
Penelope's appearance at the doorstep as follows: 'Right there and then their
knees were losened; with desire, no doubt, their hearts were enchanted' (TWV
<5' aùToù ÀÙTO yoùvaT' ,f.pw <5' èipa 8~ov f.8&ÀYX8&v Od.vsse.v 18.212). In what
way do these last Iwo examples differ from the others? ln ail instances of
•
application of eros to non-sexual desire, Homer is quick to specify the object
of desire by use of an objective genitive. On the other hand, when eros is
used in the sense of sexual desire, there seems to be no particular need to
specify its object (q>lÀoTllC;); it is easily implied. Our observations, then, would
suggest that in Homer eros is a rather generic term for 'want', but we may
perhaps be justified in thinking that its most obvious application is in the
sphere of sexual love.
This would help explain later usage of eros. For in Hesiod and in early
lyric (which, in the Archaic age, took the place of epic as the dominant poetic
,. This fannula appears very frequently. Ali instances are cited in Cunliffe's l.exicon of the
Ilomcrù- Dial<'(1., under the entry ilJll(9).
43
form in Greece), eros is almost exclusively applied in the sense of sexual
desire, and this goes along with an increasing appreciation of the centrality
of the erotic experience in life. Indeed in Hesiod Eros becomes a god in his
own right, while in the work of the early Iyrists we easily observe an
overwhelming emphasis on the experience of love's Yet nowhere in Homer,
or in Hesiod, or in early lyric poetry (aside from Archilochus 19W) do we find
êpwC; expressing ambition of any kind. So it becomes particularly interesting
that at the very beginning of the era that became known as the 'age of the
•
tyrants', at the time when the importance of eros was increasingly
recognized, and in the text where the word 'tupavvic; appears for the very first
time, we find tyrannical ambition closely associated with eros.
This will become even more remarkable if we consider the actual
grammatical form that Archilochus uses to express tyrannical eros; èpew, the
lonic variant of èpaw, represents the earliest extant active instance of the
Greek word for '1 desire', and implies an eager, aggressive type of eros, what
we would cali 'IUSt"6. What is it then, that makes tyrannical ambition akin to
sexual desire?
The question we address will prove worthy of detailed study if we
consider the widespread influence in subsequent times (especially in later
•
lyric poetry and in the work of fifth century writers) of Archilochus' channelling
of eros into Iwo main usages, sexual and political'7.
Indeed, after
Archilochus, and aside from its main application in the sphere of sexual
desire, eros is found in a metaphorical sense employed mainly, and
'5 Indeed in HesiOO, Eros is the first divinity that came into existence alter Chaos and the
Earth. The poet introduces the new divinity as 'Eros, fairest among the immortal gOOs, the
loosener of Iimbs, who overcomes the mind and wise counsels wilhin the chests of ail gOOs
and of ail mortals' (1)6' ·E~, ÔC; KciÀÀlaToc; cv ci8avciTOlOI 9EOïo~ , ÀUOlllEÀi]c;. nciVTlllV 6E 9EWV
nciVTlllV T' civ9p<ilnlllv 'OOI'VQTQ, cv On;9EOOI VOoV KQ! cnlq>povQ llouÀ'lv. 'I·'If:"!.!"")' 120-122).
The lyric poets who came after HesiOO would enlarge on his appreciation of the new gOO's
fonnidable powers. On the gOO Eros in HesiOO, see Vemant 1990.465-467. On Eros as a goo
in Greek lyric poetry, see Rosenmeyer 1951.11-22. On the emphasis on the experience of
eros in earty Greek lyric, see Snell 1953.50 and following.
'6 Homer and Sappho always prefer the middle fonn tp<JIJQl.
" 1note that in our extant Archilochus, there are only Iwo different types of eros, 'desire for
joining in love' (cptÀOTl'lToc; tpwc; 191W 1), and 'desire for tyranny' (Cptlll TIlpClvvi6oc; 19W 3).
44
extensively, in political contexts. This may be related with the profound social
and historical developments that followed the formation of the polis and the
consequent invention of politics in the Archaic age. Political life was
something new and exciting and citizens engaged in it with a passion which
apparentiy could legitimately be termed <1ros. It is characteristic that by
classical times, this 'erotic metaphor' in politics had become such a
commonplace, that its frequent use in fifth century political rhetoric provoked
Aristophanes' merciless parody'8. On the 'erotic' aspect of Athenian politics,
•
William Arrowsmith notes the following: 19
Politics itself was, to the mind of the period, so pervasively
passionate that it could naturally be brought under the rubric of
Eros. Or rather Eros, specifically and indeed commonly, was
applied, from Aeschylus to Plato and Aristotie, to activities and
traits which we would normally classify as political ambition; the
love of glory, envy, lust for power, partisan zeal, greed for money
or conquest.
To these perceptive remarks we may add Iwo things. First, that Professor
Arrowsmith's observations apply not only to Allie authors, but also hold in
epinician poetry and lonian historiography. And then, that some of the most
remarkable instances of application of ercs in political contexts involve
•
specifie references to ambition for a tyranny20. In Pindar for example, Ëpwc:;
applies to sexual love, and to ambitions and aspirations, aspiration for a
tyranny being, of course, the most extravagant. One passage in particular
(Pyrhian 11.50-54), in which tyrannical desire is contrasted with other, nobler
aspirations, is weil worth noting. It explicitly rejects the lot of tyrannies
(lJtlJ~Ql alaav 1lJPC1vvi~lIlv 53), and endorses instead 'desire for fair things
that come from the gods' (8e68&v tpa4Jav KaÀwv 50)2'. Even more strikingly,
18 For a collection of the entertaining relevant passages and discussion see the note of
Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover on Thucydides 2.43.
'9 Arrowsmith 1973.133.
20 For a synoptie treatment of this theme, see Hartog 1988.335-336. Also Nagy 1990.290.
~, On eros in Pindar, see Bulman 1992.10 togelher wilh our own remar1<s in p. 66 below. The
expression "là. KaÀci" in Pindar oflen refers to the material goo<ls of aristocratie Iife as weil
45
in Herodotus èpw<:; and its forms are found in Iwo senses only: sexual desire,
and desire for a tyranny"", Some characters 'desire' to become tyrants, for
instance Deioces (Lll'JlOKl'J~ Ë:paoSci~ TupavvliSo~ KTh, 1,96): Pausanias. king of
Sparta and victor at Plataea. was later 'filled with desire to become tyrant of
ail Greece (nauoavil'J~ 0 KhCOIJJ3p()TOU t\aKciSallJOVlo~. ' , , . ePWTa oxwv Til~
'EhhciiSo~ Tupavv~ ycvEoSal KTh.
5,32), It appears, as Periander's daughter
argues. that tyranny 'has many lovers' (nohhoi iSi:
cial
•
aUTil~ ITupavvliSo~1 Ë:paoTai
3,53). an opinion shared by a character in Euripides:
il yàp Tupavvi~ naVTOScv Tol;cucTal
iScvvol~ èpwalv, ~~ CPUhaKTEOV nEpl.
(Euripides fr. 850 TGF)
For tyranny is always the target of the arrows
of terrible desires, and [therefore] must be defended,
The passages quoted above carry with them the promise that fruitful
observations may result from
a
detailed
inquiry
into
the
special
characteristics of tyranny that would make tyrannical ambition a kind of lust
that may, in some sense, legitimately be called eros. 1have already indicated
that we could approach this question from a broad social and historical
perspective taking into account the watershed developments which ensued
•
with the establishment of the polis in the early Archaic age. Such a
discussion, which could be included as part of a larger project than the
present study, will gain in resonance if we foilow here a different line of
approach, one that will deal with the question in the terms set out in
Archilochus' poem; Archilochus' speaker explains that he does not desire a
tyranny because such a thing is far away from his eyes. This implies that
visual perception of a tyranny may open up the possibility of such desire.
as to the morally commendable efforts of the athlete and of the poet who praises athlelic
achievement. It also refers to other 'fair deeds' of the victor, aside from his athletic
accomplishments, such as his noble expenditure of money for honouring the gods, and for
financing the victory celebration and the victory ode. On this, see our note 87 in pp, 95-96
below.
2:! We owe this valuable observation to Bemadete 1969.137.
46
Consequently, we are searching for a property pertaining to tyranny that is
visible and that would make tyranny an object of desire that could properly be
termed eros.
This formulation of our question necessitates a detour into how the
Greeks described the experience of desire. Such an exploration is certainly
worthwhile in itself, but it is also utterly relevant to the topic at hand, tyranny.
What we have said so far makes it plain, 1think, that a proper understanding
of Greek ideas on tyranny requires at least some understanding of Greek
•
concepts linked to eros. Moreover, 1wish to emphasize that although we will
momentarily depart from tyranny in the next few sections of this chapter,
nevertheiess the discussion of desire that will follow is structured around the
parameters of the question that we have posed here, and is informed
throughout by the question of Greek tyranny. In the final five sections the
relevance of our argument on desire to tyranny will be revealed.
2.4 EROS AND THE EYE
We are investigating the intersection of tyranny, vision, and desire. Let
us then begin with the question of the relation between desire and vision. In
•
section two we argued that in Greek thought, sight was the primary sensory
stimulus to envy. Several passages, in post-Homeric Greek literature mainly,
offer abundant evidence that such a relation between sight and eros also
holds23 . The one Homeric passage that illustrates the connection between
We emphasize that the passages we cite on the relation between desire and vision are
post-Homeric because, despite the force of l/j:Jd 16.181-183 (teX!, translation, and
discussion in this section below) , we find in Homer no apparent special connection between
the Iwo. Perhaps the emphasis on vision in desire, which we encounter so often in teXls
dating from classical times, is a fiterate phenomenon, i.e. it reflects the transition from oral
culture to literate culture, a transition which began sorne time during the Archaic age, and
which distinguishes Homer's conceptual world, and experience of eros, from the lyric poets'.
The connection between the advent of Iiteracy in Greece and the role of vision in desire is a
deep question worlhy of exploration, but weil beyond the scope of the present study. 1 will
simply note here that such a study would do weil to take as its point of departure Professor
Anne Carson's keen observations on the differences between Archilochus' conception and
experience of eros and the corresponding experience in the oral culture that preceeded him.
Z3
47
desire and vision refers to Polymele 'with whom powerful Hermes fell in love
when he saw her with his eyes among the girls dancing ln the chorus for
loud-sounding Artemis of the golden distaff ( , , ' Tlle; iSt KpaTÙe; 'Apy&'i'POVTll<; 1
TtpàooaT', ôcp8aÀI.loloiV iiSwv I.l&Ta I.l&ÀnOI.l&VI1OIV 1 EV
xopw 'ApT&1.l1iSOe;
XPUOTlÀaKOTOU K&ÀaiS&lv!ie; lIi:ld 16,181-183), A much later poet testlfles to the
capability of vision to inspire eros when he claims that 'If you looked upon my
beloved and were not subdued by the flames of desire, then you must be
either a god or a stone' (ci is' &iOliSwv, W !;&V&, nuplcpÀ&KTOIOI no80101V OUK
•
i:iS0l.llle;, novTWe; Tt 8&0e; Tt À18oe; cl [Anon, HE 13,3-4]), Eisewhere, a traglc
chorus addresses
KaT' Ôl.ll.lciTWV
Er~s
oTci~wv
as 'the one who drips desire on the eyes' CEpwc:, 0
noSov [Euripides Hippolytw: 525-526]), while in a
different context Menelaus discovers that 'in the absences of eyes ail desire
has vanished' (ÔI.lI.lOTWV is' i:v ciXllviale; i:PP&l nao'AcppoiSlTa Aeschylus
Agamemnon 419),
The passages quoted above carry the suggestion that while deslre
obviously involves ail senses, the Greeks (after Homer at least) afforded
primacy to vision in this respect. This suggestion finds convincing support in
the following remark of Aristotle:
•
Tole; i:pWal TO ôpàv àyanllTôTaTôv i:OTI Ka! l.laÀÀov aipOÙVTal TauTllv
Tilv aicr81j0lV f) Tae; Àomàe; Wc; KaTa TauTllv I.lciÀlOTa TOÙ i':PWTD<;
OVTW<; Ka! Y&VOlli:vou, (Eth. Nic. 9,12)
For lovers sight is an exceedingly dear thing, and they prefer this
sense to ail others because it is in vision that love most often
originates and maintains itself,
Aristotle's cool observation finds a much intensified echo in Plutarch:
Kai TWV i:PWTlKWV, â iSil I.li:Y1OTa Ka! ocpOOpOTaTa na811l.laTa T!ie;
llIUXile; i:ativ, àpxilv Tt ÔIjJle; i:viSiiSwmv, wcm: pciv Kai À&$&OSCll TOV
&PWTlKOV OTav &IlI3Ài:nn Toie; KaÀoie;, oiov &KX€Ô\J€VOV €ie; aÙTOÛ<;,
(Moralia 5,7.681a-b)
See Carson 1986.46-61; (we point out that Archilochus is the eartiest poet whOse work
betrays the influence of the new, at his time, technology of writing).
48
Vision provides the impulse io desire, that most powerful and
violent experience of the sOI.<I, causing the lover ta melt and
dissolve whenever he looks upon those who are beautiful, as
though he were pouring out his very self towards them.
Let us consider Plutarch's views in some detail, since much of what he
says on the effects of the sense of sight will be important ta our study further
on when we will tum ta discuss Plato's account of desire and vision.
ln Plutarch, eros is only one example, an important one, of the powerful
•
effects caused by vision. He grounds his theory of sight on the famous
doctrine of the effluences. Briefly, physical abjects were believed to give off
streams of particles known as 'effluences' (ànoppoai) or 'emanations'
(àna<popai). Sense perception results when these particles are reœived by
the 'pores' (nOpal) which are tiny passages on the surface of our sense
organs. The pores of each of these organs are sa shaped as ta receive
effluences of the corresponding sense only. The nase for example is
equipped wilh pores which admit effluences of smell exclusively, and sa on
wilh the other senses. The theory of effluences enjoyed widespread
acceptance and we encounter il, with variations in detail, in lhe works of
•
several philosophers including the Atomists and Plata. It was attributed
however ta Empedocles who was the first ta apply il, ingeniously, ta the
explanation of a variely of phenomena including chemical mixture and
magnetism, as weil as sense perception24 . Plutarch clarifies certain aspects
of the theory and establishes the status of visual effluences within it in the
following passage:
"àAAà Ili)v". éCPTlv i:yeil, "TpOnov nvà Tl"Jc: aitiac: ixvoc: n Kat Tpij30v
àvcUpTlKac:. i:nt Tàc: ànoppoiac: Tiilv O~àTlllV àcplKÔfJcvoc:' Kat yàp i}
èolli} Kat i} cpwvTj Kat TO P&ÙI!a Tl"Jc: àvanvoi'lc: àna<popai nvi:c: ciOt Tiilv
~WwV Kat Ili:PTI KlvoùvTa Tàc: aia9i)OCIC:, OTav lm' aÙTiilv
npocmCOOVTlllV nél8wat . . . llàA1aTa 15& ToùTo yiyvcoeal i5là Tiilv
èlcp6a.Àlliilv cÎK6c: i:an' nOÀlJKiVTlTOC: yàp i} ÔIjJlc: Ma IlcTà nvcU!JaTOC:
~4 Sources and discussion in Kirk, Raven. and Schofield 1983.308 and following.
49
aUyT)V à<plcv1:oc; TlUpWOll SalJllacmiv 1:lVa olacm&ip&l OUVa~IlV, W<TT&
TloÀÀa Kai TlàC7)(&IV Kai TlOI&IV 01' aÙ"n;c; 1:ev àvepwTlov. lioovaic; yap
OUJ.l~C1:POlc; Kai àllOiaLc; uTle 1:WV opa1:wv 1:P&Tl()~&VOc; O'UVE:X&1:aI."
(Moralia 5.7.68Of-681a)
•
"'ndeed", 1 said, "you yourself, in a way, have found the track and
trail of the cause when you arrived at the effluences 'hat come
from physical bodies. For smell, and voice, and the current of
breath are ail emanations of some kind, streams of particles
coming from living beings, which r'imulate sensation whenever our
organs of sense are affected by their impact ... It is probable that
the most powerful of these streams is that which passes through
the eyes. For v,sion is enormously swift and is carried by a spirit
that leaves off a certain flame-like 1~lninosity, and so diffuses a
wondrous power. As a result, humans both experience and
produce many effects through vision, They are gripped and led on
both by pleasure and by displeasure in exact proportion to what
they see.
Plutarch then goes on to introduce ercs as a characteristic experience that
involves intense sensations of 'pleasure commingled with pain' (T)oovÎ'lc;
àÀYTlè50vl
~&~ly~cvllc;
681b) which 'melts and destroys lovers' (1:oùc; cpWv1:ac;
&KniKel Kai àTloÀÀUCt 681b). The conclusion is this:
Me yèlp àmOlJCvOlC; Me àKoUoucnv MW 1:11:p<ilO'Kelv O'\JIlJ!aivel Kai
TlàC7)(elV, lix; npoa\3À&TlOUCt. (Mora/ia 5.7.681b-c)
•
Neither by touch nor by hearing do they get so wounded and
experience such suffE'ring as by sight.
Modem readers may reasonably protest here that Plutarch overemphasizes
the role of vision in desire, and the influential power of vision generally, and
underestimates the part played by the other senses. Indeed we cannot help
but be surprised at the confidence with which he expounds his strange
theory, But perhaps this theory may appear strange to modem readers
because the ancient Greek conception and experience of vision differ from
our own, And perhaps Plutarch's very confidence indicates that we are
dealing with ideas that were widely accepted, and therefore could easily
convince. Certainly, much of what Plutarch says here is quite in tune with the
50
passages from Aristotle and from poetry that we cited at the beginning cf this
section. Further, his account of vision is firmly based on a popular
philosophical theory. It also seems that the influence of these ideas went weil
beyond philosophical circles.
ln fact, Plutarch's own discussion of vision is in no way academic. Il
comes from a section of the Moralia which includes several informai
conversations collectively titled "Tabl~ T :3lk" (Quaestiones Conviviales), With
the exception of Plutarch himself who wa& obviously erudite in philosophy, ail
•
the interlocutors were educated laymen engaged in polite debate on issues
of popular interest, in this case the 'evil eye' and other effects experienced by
seeing and being seen. Not one of the participants expresses any objections
to Plutarch's views. It seems then that they were widely held 2S If we accept
this, then perhaps we have provided ourselves with an angle from which we
can approach
othe~
Greek passages which would otherwise be very puzzling
indeed. As an example we will consider Gorgias' Encomium of Helen. Our
discussion of Gorgias will deepen our understanding of the role of vision in
desire and will comfortably lead us to our discussion of Plato.
2.5 EXCURSUS: EPDI, OIIJ/I, AND 110ro..rIN GORGIAS'
•
ENCOMIUM OF HELEN
Along with the Defence of Palamedes, the Helen is the only speech of
Gorgias that survives in its entirety. This short work is not the texl of an
actual speech delivered on some public occasion, but, as the author himself
states, 'a private diversion' (i:IJOV 05& naiyvlov Helen 21), an exercise in
rhetorical skill. Perhaps, as Professor W. K. C. Guthrie suggests, it was
included in the Technai, models of rhetorical speeches which Gorgias'
disciples studied25 . Its ostensible purpose was to rectify Helen's reputation.
:l5
Cf. Walcot 1978.82-83.
26
Guthrie
1971.270.
51
Generally, Helen was a negative figure in Greek myth She was often
praised for her exceptional beauty, but her elopement with Paris was almost
universally thought to be the cause of the Trojan War. We get a good idea of
Helen's image, if we consider that Semonides of Amorgos concludes, and
justifies, his lengthy satirical poem on women with a particularly vicious
attack on Helen
2
':
ZCÙc; yap IJ&YlaTov TOùT' ènOll1aCv KaKOV
Kai iScalJov à<p&Sl1KCV ëPPl1KTOV n&iSl1C;
è~' où TC TOÙC; lJi:v 'AiiSl1c; èiS&~aTO
yuvalKoc; C1VCK' àlJ<PliSl1PlWIJ&VOUc;. (Semonides 7W 185-188)
•
For this is the greatest of ail evils that Zeus created
and shackled us with unbreakable bonds
ever since the time when Hades received the men
who went to war for the sake of a woman.
These Iines are uncommonly offensive indeed, but they do represent the
common view"8. This being the case, the sophist who would make it his
mission to defend Helen, and thus once more to 'strengthen the weaker
case', would have a formidable task ahead of him indeed; and the resulting
arguments would expectedly be interesting.
•
27 Semonides does not mention Helen's name here (perhaps as an expression of his
contempt for her. See note 93 in section twelve of this chapter, pp, 99-100 below). At any
rate we may be certain that Helen is the person whom Semonides is billerly allacking here, if
we consider the following passage from Homer:
-n nonDl, ~ I.lciÀa li;' vovov ATpi:cx; EùpUona ZEÙC;
txnciÀVOX; iiX8lJP& VuvaU<Eiac; 1ilci IlouÀac;
t~ cipxi'Ic;' 'EÀtvlJ<; I.IÈv cinOlÀOIJE8' ElvExa noÀÀoi . , . ((M....,,,·... 11. 436-437)
Certainly wide seeing Zeus displayed astonishing
hatred against the offspring of Atreus because of counsels of women
from the start; many of us were outdone because of Helen.
Yet there does run a minor, but significant, and very inleresting, tradition in favour of
Helen. The Homeric Priam exclaims that the gods are to blame for the war and not Helen
(lliad 3.164). In Euripides' '[rojan n'omen, Helen is offered an opportunity to defend her
innocence in the <X.:ltext of a fonmal debate between herself and Hecuba (914-1032).
Stesichorus famously asserted th•• Helen did not sail to Troy al ail (192 PMG). Euripides
expands on this in the play that bears Helen's name, where it is said that it was a phantom of
Helen that went to Troy. On the tradition in defence of Helen see aise MacDowe1l1982.12
28
S2
Gorgias introduces his argument by listing the four possible causes of
Helen's departure to Troy. She was compelled to do so by the gods, or taken
away by force, or persuaded by Paris, or else she fell in love with him. The
first Iwo possibilities do not hold any particular interest since in both cases
Helen is obviously innocent. The third and fourth causes, however, are weil
worth considering. Suppose Helen fell in love with Paris, also known as
Alexander, and consequently eloped with him to Troy. In this case, Gorgias
argues, Helen is again not to be blamed. He reasons as follows:
•
•
àÀÀa ~i]v oi ypacpcle; èrrav èK noÀÀwv XPW~àTWV Kai aw~àTwv sv
aw~a Kai ax1i~a TCÀciwe; àncpyàawv1:al, 1:èpnOUOl 1:i]v ÔljJlV. li è5&
àè5Plàv1:wV noillOle; Kai li àyaÀ~à1:wv èpyaaia voaov liè5clav napeaXC1:O 1:01e; ~~aOlv. OÙ1:W 1:a ~&V Àunclv, 1:a è5& 1:epnClV necpuKc 1:i')v
ÔljJIv. noÀÀa è5& nOÀÀole; noÀÀwv splll1:a Kai nOElov èvcpyà~c1:Ol
npay~à1:wV Kai aw~à1:wv. ci OÙV 1:W 1:OÙ 'AÀc~àvè5pou aw~a1:l 1:0 1:ne;
'EÀevne; ~~a liae&v npoe~iav Kai <ÏIl~IÀav SPW1:O<; 1:fi ljJUxfi napéè5WKc,1:i ea~a01:ov; (Enc. of Hekn 18-19)
Certainly when painters complete out of many colours and objects
a single object and form, they please the sight. The creation of
statues and the production of ornaments provides a pleasant
disease to the eyes. Thus some things naturally distress, and
others please the sight. Many things create in many people desire
and longing for many objects and physical forms. So if Helen's eye
pleased by Alexander's physical appearance transmitted
willingness and eagerness for love into her soul, what is
surprising?
'What is surprising?' is indeed the question. It is not of course surprising at
ail that Helen was pleased by the sight of somebody. Such things do happen.
But that this p:easure afforded by sight could be so compelling as to take
complete control of people and render them not accountable for their actions,
that is surprising. However, as we saw, Plutarch and his friends would
probably applaud Gorgias. We recall that humans are 'gripped and led on
both by pleasure and by displeasure in exact proportion to what they see'
(lioovalc; 1:C yàp OlJI.l~e1:polC; Ka! ànè5iOlc; üno 1:WV Opa1:WV 1:pcnéll!cvoc; auveXC1:Ol
Plutarch Moralia 5.7.681a). The similarity be!ween Plutarch's remark and
53
Gorgias' argument is not in the least accidentai Not only was Gorgias
familiar with Empedoclean theories of vision. but he himself was thought to
be a disciple of Empedocles 29 .
Quite aside from this. there is another subtle point in favour of Gorgias'
argument. The most convincing example of the powerful impact of physical
beauty on vision was the beauty of Helen herseIf. To convince ourselves of
this we need only recall the famous scene from Euripides' Trojan
WOlllt'n
in
which Menelaus drops his sword at the sight of Helen 30 . Also, in a celebrated
•
passage from the lliad, the Trojan eiders are stunned at the sight of Helen's
arrivai at the wall, and for a moment waver in the thought that after ail it is
worthwhile fighting the war for the sake of such a woman (lli.ld 3.154_158)31.
Thus with his argument Gorgias provokes his audience to consider that if
men can be reasonably excused for being swayed by beauty such as
Helen's, then perhaps they should excuse Helen herself for falling victim to
visual beauty. By inverting a weil established stereotype, Gorgias catches his
audience unawares. We can imagine him smiling as he asks "Tl 80lJllOOTOV;"
However, there is more about Gorgias' argument that is SaIJllOOTOV in
tha sense of puzzling, such as the inclusion and content of his remarks on
the visual arts. On the one hand, this component of his argument appears
•
redundant; he could have made his point simply by stating that persons
blessed with outstanding physical appearance can easily affect the eyesight
of others and inspire eros in them. And then, he seems to be exaggerating
when he argues that the charms of painting and sculpture are powerful
enough to effect eros. Such a position seems unlikely coming from a man
whose Iife was devoted to the teaching and practice of the art of public
speaking. Indeed elsewhere Gorgias mentions other arts and skiIls only to
point out their inferiority to the art of speeches. In his view ail
29
30
31
Diogenes laertius 8.58, Souda y 388, Plato Meno 76c.
On this scene, see Segal 1995.185.
TeX!. translation, and discussion of this passage in our neX! section.
T&XVQI
are
54
subordinate to rhetoric 'for the function of rhetoric is to persuade, and you
control ail arts and ski Ils if you persuade other people to exercise them or not
to exercise them as you wish; therefore rhetoric, in Gorgias' view, is the
supreme art,J2.
Accordingly, Gorgias has much to sayon the effects of speech
(~6yoe;)
and persuasion (maew) in the Hden itself. In fact, he treats at greater length
than any other case the possibility that Helen was persuaded by speech to
leave for Troy (&i oi: ~6yoc; 0 n&iaae; KT~. 8). Helen is not to be blamed if she
•
fell victim to ~6yoe; and n&leW. Speech is a formidable master (~6yoe;
OUVaaT!'\e;
~i:yae;
i:aTiv 8). It can stop fear, remove sorrow, create joy, and
augment pitY (8). Its effects are compared to those of magic and sorcery
(Y0!,\T&iae; oi: Kai ~ay&[ae; 10). Peruasive speech can deceive people, and
even make them lose their minds (Tilv ljJ\J)(ilv cinaTliaae; 8, TO yàp Tile; n&18oùe;
i:!;ilv 0 oi: voùe; 12). In conclusion, persuasive speech mouIds the mind in any
way it wishes (il n&leW npocnOÙC1a Tt!i ~6yw Kai Tilv ljJuxilv i:TunwoaTo onwc;
i:~OU~&TO
13). To a modern reader this last statement will certainly appear an
exaggeration. Yet, such pronouncements on the irresistible power of ~6yoc;
are characteristic of Gorgias' thought, and may be understood in terms of his
Iife and his time.
•
No one before Gorgias had cultivated the art of rhetoric to the extent
that he did. He enjoyed a brilliant career out of his art, and lived a long Iife in
which he was happy to observe its influence. And at a mature stage in his
life, when he was sent by his Leontinian countrymen to Athens to procure
help for them in their skirmish against their neighbouring Syracusans, his
speech took his Athenian audience by storm; he easily secured their help
and left them begging for more:l3. This being the case, and since in the Helen
he does consider the possibility that Helen f1ed because of desire, it seems
strange that he nowhere mentions that A6yoc; may have had a part in
3=
33
MacDoweIl1982.10. Sources: Plato Phi/chus 58a, Gorda.< 453a
Diodorus 12.53, Thucydides 3.86, Plato IIippiz A1aior-282b.
55
inspiring èpw<; in Helen. It would have been reasonable for him to say for
instance that skillfully seductive speech and a pleasant voice can have a
compelling role in effecting desire. Vet he does not do
50.
and his silence
becomes even louder when we consider the alternative he offers; the effect
of the visual arts.
1 think we can disentangle ail this. Close reading of the Helen has
convinced me that, at least implicitly. Gorgias does wish to establish a
powerful link be!ween desire and speech, but also that he senses obstacles
•
in his effort to convince that such a powerful link exists. 1will make this clear;
if Gorgias included the concept of persuasive speech in his argument on
desire, he would have to subordinate X6ycx: to
ÔljnC;.
In other words he would
have been forced to argue that the conception of eros is primarily a visual
experience, but that speech may have an important part in it as weil. This is
not what Gorgias wants. So he follows a different course; he identifies nCIEl<il
as the main product of artful X6ycx: and treats èpw<; and nCletil as Iwo mutually
exclusive agents of influence. Desire appeals to the eye, persuasion appeals
to the ear. He then boldly proceeds to argue that the visual arts effect desire
This is risky, but it may carry some weight with an audience that recognizes
the powerful role of vision in desire. Finally, in his concluding remarks, he
•
attracts his own art of persuasive speech to desire by analogy;
CiTC èilJ.CI i:paa8cloa CiTC X6ylJ,l nCla8cloa ... ènpaE;cv ëI ènpaE;c,
ncivTW<; ~la<pcUycl TTjV aiTiav. (Helen 20)
Whether she did what she did because she was enamoured by
sight or persuaded by words, in each case she escapes the
accusation.
The clauses Ôljlel i:paa8cloa and X6ylJ,l nCla8cloa are entirely parallel; Ôl\J&I
corresponds to X6ylJ,l, i:paa8cloa to nCla8cloa. They rhyme. And if we read
ÔI\J&l i:paa8&loa with elision, the Iwo clauses are of exactly the same length.
Gorgias' intentions are now clear; èpw<; and nClEl<il are distinct powers. None
56
is subordinate to the other. But they are similar in their equally impressive
effects and in their equally compelling seductiveness, so that anyone who
falls under their influence is justified in being swayed by them.
So Gorgias finally establishes a link between speech and love, bu!
throughout his argument we sense that in his effort he recognizes that with
reference to inspiration of desire, O\jJlC; is a most formidable opponent of
ÀOYoc;. And this recognition is perhaps most directly evidenced at the very
opening of his argument on the effects of artful speech:
•
ÀOYoc; ~&yac; ouvàaTllC; &aTlV OC; ~IKpOTàTW
eEloTaTa èpya ànoTEÀEl. (Hden 8)
aw~aTl
Kai àcpaVEaTàT'!l
Speech is a compelling master; it is minute in substance and
completely invisible but it accomplishes most godly feats.
Gorgias' choice of words implies that he is arguing against a common
perception according ta which if something is ta have 'godly effects', it must
be materially substantial and conspicuously visible.
This, 1 think, is a reasonable reading of the Helen, and one that
consolidates what we have leamed from Plutarch on the raie of vision in
desire34 .
•
A few additional comments are dearly in order here. The requirements of our argument
necessitated our heavy emphasis on the visual component of desire. This, hOwever, leaves
us open to the charge that we underestimated the role of speech, and hence, that we are
offering a one sided discussion of a topic (eros) that, perhaps more than any other, resists
one sided discussions. So 1would Iike to point out in this space that in Greek representations
of eros bath sight and speech have a significant role. Indeed the lyric poets altributed to bath
much more powerful effects than we would in our culture. To convince ourselves of this we
need only consider, in Sappho 31 LP, the powerful impact thatthe girl's lovely countenance
and delighlful speech would have on the poet if the poet could only bear to look upon her
and Iisten to her dosely. What this shows is that the experience of eros in ancient Greek
civilization was much more intense than the experience of love in our culture. What 1 am
arguing then is that the effect of vision on desire was considered more powerful than the
effect of speech, not that the effect of speech was in any way feeble. Further, our discussion
does not sufficiently emphasize the importance of the analogy between speech and desire
that we detected in Gorgias. Professer Anne Carson has discovered this analogy from a
different route and has convincingly brought out its deep implications in Carson 1986.49 and
following. In general, the analogy between language (bath spoken and written) and love is a
major theme in Professer Carson's landmark essay, whose influence on my own work 1
happily acknowledge.
34
57
2.6 EPO..fAND OIPŒIN PLATO
We have already gone a long way in detecting and clarifying Greek
views on the special link between desire and vision. Yet there still remain
several points to be elucidated. We have seen for instance that vision
'provides the initial impulse to desire' (TWV èPWTIKWV . . . àpX'lv il ô\jIle;
èvoiowow [Plutarch '''faralia 5.7.681 a-b]) , and we have hinted that an
explanation of the process by which this was thought to be accomplished can
•
be offered by recourse to the theory of effluences, but we have not yet
explained exactly how. Also, we have not yet dealt with the question of what
it is that the lover sees in eros; that is, we have yet to identify the common
visible quality which characterizes objects of desire, and whose presence in
tyranny would make tyranny a 'Iegitimate' object of eros. It is with these
points of inquiry in mind that we will now turn to approach Plato's clear and
wonderfully weil written account of desire and vision in the Phat'drus.
Plato argues that what is 'most desired' is beauty: 'As it is, beauty alone
has received this privilege of being most clearly evident and most desirable'
(vùv oi: KciÀÀO<; 1l0VOV TaUT'lV taxE Iloipav, WaT' èKcpavÉotaTov elVal Kai
èpaOllllilTaTOV Phaedrus 250e). Accordingly the lover is defined as the one
•
who loves those who are beautitul (0 èp<iiv TWV KaÀwv Épaotile; KaÀEI'tal
24ge). Physical beauty is a likeness of 'ideal beauty' which enjoys its
privileged position far from the ever mutable world of earthly phenomena, in
the land of the eternal and changeless Forms which are apprehended by the
intellect alone, and which are the only true abjects of knowledge.
The Greek word for Plato's Forms is ioÉal derived from the aorist root of
the verb Opcilll, 'to see'. The same root also generates oloa 'to know'. Further,
in much of Greek thought, and in Plato particularly, what is known is
frequently described as iIIuminated and clearly visible, while what is unknown
is represented as obscured in darkness. To illustrate this we may consider
Plato's famous allegory of the cave. The dark 'shadows' of the cave (-rée;
58
aKlàc; Rc:pub/ic 515a) represent ignorance and are contrasted with the
'dazzling light' of truth and knowledge in the sunlit world beyond the cave
("roc; IJOPlJopuyàC; Rc:p. 515c). Knowledge then in Plato, and elsewhere in
Greek thought, is often constructed as vision
35
.
Accordingly, when Plato
further on in the Phac:drus argues that the soul before entering the body had
known true beauty in ail its glory, he describes this apprehension as a
luminous vision: 'At that time it was possible ta behold beauty in its radiance'
(KàhhOC; i5& TOT' ~v ii5&iv hOlJnp6v 250e).
•
Our access to beauty in this world is through vision. Sight of beauty in
its earthly manifestations awakens the soul's memory of the beauty it had
beheld before its entry into the body had brought about forgetfulness. Earthly
beauty is again described in the language of luminosity
n&pi i5& KàhhOUC;, wan&p &tnolJ&V, IJ&T' i:K&lvwv [TWV ii5&wv] thOlJn&V
àv, iS&ùpo T' &h86vT&C; KaT&lhti~&V aùTO iSl<l Tl'Je; &vapY&aTàTlle;
aia8tia&wc; TWV lilJ&T&pwV aTlhl30v &vapY&aTaTo. àljJlc; yàp ~lJîv
~uTàTll TWV iSl<l TOÙ aWlJoTOC; tPX&TOl ala8tio&wv. (Phac:drus 250d)
•
As for beauty, as we have said, it was radiant being with the other
[Forms), and now that we have come to Earth, we have found it
gleaming most clearly through the clearest of our senses. For of ail
the sensations that come to us through the body, sight is the
keenest.
Further on, the face of the beloved is said to 'flash' and it is at this moment of
illumination that 'memory is brought back to the nature of true beauty' (TTjv
ÔljJlv àaTpâmouoav ... li I-IvtilJll np6c; TTjV TOÙ KàhhOUe; <pÛalv liV&X811 254b). The
moment of inception of desire is described in the following remarkable
passage:
On the interpretation and expression of knowledge as 'seeing' in the Greek context, see
Vernant 1995.12, and 8egaI1995.191-195. Blurnenberg 1993, is a cornrehensive study of
rnetaphors describing truth as Iight in Greek, Medieval, and Modem thought. Blurnenberg
explains how variations of this basic rnetaphor in the history of philosophy indicate changing
wortdviews. ThIS interesting article includes a discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave in pp.
35
36-40.
59
OTav 8&O&léSi:C; npoownov 1éSTl KaÀÀOC; &ù ~&~&VTl~&VOV ft TlVa OW~aTOC;
iéS&av, npWTOV ~i:v tq>pl~& ... , &iTa npooopwv O&~&Tal, Kai si ~il
téS&éSi&l Tilv TftC; oq>oéSpa ~avlac; éSo~av, 8ÙOl av wc; ayaÀ~aTI Kai 8&w
TOIC; naléSlKoiC;; [éSovTa éSi: aùTov olov &K Ti)c; q>plKTlC; ~&Ta~oÀTl T& Kat
8&P~OTTlC; Àa~~av&l. éS&~a~&voc; yap TOÙ KaÀÀOuc; Tilv anoppoilv <Sla
TWV èq>8aÀ~wv i:8&p~av8Tl (Ph:Jt'drus 251 a)
•
When [the lover] sees a godlike face or sorne physical appearance
which weil reminds true beauty, he first shudders in fear and then
gazes at it and reveres it like a god, and if he did not fear of
appearing completely mad, he would sacrifice to his beloved as to
a statue or a god. After having seen him, not surprisingly, a
change takes hold of him after the shuddering, and sweat and
fever; for he is warmed by the reception of the effluence of beauty
through his eyes.
It is precisely this 'effluence of beauty' that Plato will define as 'deslre' in the
Cracylus:
tpwC; ... i:0P&1 t~w8&v Kai OÙK OiK&ia i:oTIV il poil aÙTTl Tt!> i:xoVTl
aÀÀ' i:n&iOaKTOC; éSla TWV è~~aTWV (Cr~lCylus 420a-b)
Desire flows in from without, and this flowing is not inherent in the
one who has it, but is introduced through the eyes.
Desire
•
therefore
begins
through
recognition
of the
lurrinosity,
the
transcendent Àa~npOTTlC; of the beloved, a recognition that recalls to the soul
the illumination of beauty it had experienced before birth. The luminous sight
directs vision toward the beloved, and with this 'gaze' desire flows in through
the eyes. If this emphasis on luminosity does not merely represent Plato's
personal views, but reflects the ancient Greek experience of desire as a
whole, then perhaps in Àa~npOTTlC; we have already found an answer to the
basic question with which we approached the Phar:drus in the first place:
'What is it that the lover sees at the moment of conception of desire?".
Plato firmly grounds his account of desire on his own theory of the
Forms and on his belief in the immortality of the soul. Yet several crucial
elements of this account are not strictly Platonic, but reflect general Greek
60
views on the experience of eros. For instance, the interpretation of the
inception of desire as a reception of an effluence of beauty recalls and
complements the ideas of Plutarch that we discussed earlier. And several
other aspects of Plato's theory of desire and vision, such as the striking
visual impact of beauty, the 'terrified' response, the recognition of 'divinity' in
the beloved, the 'gaze', and 'Iuminosity', ail find ample expression in the rich
poetic tradition that always informs Plato's numerous discussions of the vital
subject of eros'J6.
•
As an example we note thatthe striking impactthat beauty has on sight,
and the recognition of the likeness of a beautiful person to a god, along with
the sensations of 'fear' that follow such recognition, ail find most eloquent
expression in that unforgettable passage from the lIiad known as the
TE:lXCX7KOffia. The following lines describe Helen's arrivai at the Trojan wall
and the response of the Trojan eiders to her appearance:
oi ô'Wc; oùv ciôove' 'Ehevl1v enl mipyov ioÙO'av,
T)Ka npèx; àhhtlhOU<; cnca mCpOcvT' ayèpcuov'
"où velJccne; TpWae; Kal CUKvl1lJlÔae; 'AxalOÙe;
TOli)ô' àlJcpl yuvalKl nOhl.V XPèvov àhyca naaxclv'
aivWc; àBovaTnal eci)e; cie; wna couœv," (lIiad.3.154-158)
•
And when they caught sight of Helen making her way toward the tower,
in low voice they addressed to each other winged words:
"No blame is due on Trojans and weil greaved Achaeans
if they suffer continuous misfortunes for the sake of such a woman;
Terrible is the Iikeness of her face to immortal goddesses,"
Notice especially the eiders' 'terrified' response (aivWc; 158) and subsequent
Iikening of Helen's face to those of goddesses, Il corresponds very nicely to
Plato's 'fearful' response to beauty and subsequent likening of the beloved to
a god (ccppl~C , , , E:K Ti;e; cppiKl1C; , , , ecoclôèC; np6awnov , , , asl3cTQl , .. Wc; ec~
Phaedrus 251a),
36 Plato charaeteristically mentions the names of Sappho and Anacreon as the main sources
of Socrates' inspiration to speak about desire in the P/wcùrus (235c). On this statement, see
Ferrari 1987,153-154. In our folowing Iwo sections it will become evident why Plato names
these Iwo poets in particular.
61
For the purposes of the discussion at hand. !WO are the most important
concepts in Plato's theory of desire and vision the 'gaze' and ·Iuminosity·.
We will proceed to devote separate sections to each, and approach
passages from lyric poetry and tragedy which will illustrate their essential role
in Greek representations of the experience of desire. But we may close this
section by noting that the responses to desire that we detected and
discussed here, do not only find their proper place in philosophicai
discussions, in poetry. and in drama. but could also be acted out on public
•
occasion.
ln his study of the political dimension of civic ceremonial. W. R Connor
discusses a very interesting for us passage from the Epht"';;1Il 'l:I1t' (1.2.2-8).
an ancient novel by Xenophon of Ephesus. The passage describes a festival
in honour of Artemis, which included a procession of girls followed by a
procession of boys. The heroine of the novel, Anthia. led the girls'
procession. The spectators were ail smitten by her appearance She literally
stole everyone's eyes. They ail noted her beauty, her radiance, and the
sometimes terrifying severity of her eyes, ail of which promptly brought
thoughts of divinity to their minds. Some asserted that she was a replica of
Artemis fashioned by the goddess. Others exclaimed that she was the
•
goddess herself. Ali however bowed down as she passed by, and did
obeisance to her as though she were actually a goddess. The audience's
responses to Habrocomes, leader of the ephebe procession, were quite
similar37 •
After citing convincing parellel passages, Professor Connor rightly
points out that the spectators ' know perfectly weil that this girl is a human
but they delight in her beauty and express that delight by their responses,
The populace joins in a shared drama, not foolishly,
'. but playfully
participating in a cultural pattern they ail share,38, Such exclamations
37
38
Translation and detailed discussion of this passage in Connor 1987.44-45.
Connor 1987.44.
62
therefore represent typical ways of expressing enthusiasm at the presence of
beauty not only in literature, but in ritual as weil, on particular occasions.
From this angle then, Piato's account of the lover's response to the sight of
the beloved may be viewed as a philosophical variation on the conventional
pattern of formai responses to beauty in ancient Greece.
2.7 THE 'GAZE' OF DESIRE IN LYRIC POETRY AND IN THE TRAGIC
THEATRE
•
The importance of the gaze as a poetic concept and theatrical device in
the context of Greek representations of desire has not gone unnoticed by
scholars. Based on her comprehensive study of desire in Euripides'
HippoJytus, Barbara E. Goff notes the following
39
:
Hippolytos' career as an object of desire begins, according to
Aphrodite's account in the prologue, when he leaves his
grandtather's house to go to see the mysteries (25). While he is
thare, Phaidra's gaze faUs on him (idousa 27) and she falls in love.
The eye was for the Greeks the seat of desire, and the gaze was
always responsible for the instant of erolic capitulation. In a play
which actively concerns itself with the nature and effects of desire .
. . the gaze will be significant, a marker of the moments of the
onset of pass:on.
•
Further on, Professor Goff argues that 'the gaze ia a basic theatrical
resource, like staging and pIOt'40, and proceeds convincingly to support her
view by citing several iIIustrative passages from the above mentioned play of
Euripides. To these we may add two characteristic passages, one from
Euripides a;1d cne from Sophocles.
Our first example again concerns Helen. In Euripides' Trojan Women,
Hecuba urges Menelaus to murder Helen, but without looking at her. She
reasons as follows:
39
40
Goff 1990.20.
Goff 1990.20 and following.
63
aivw O€ M€veÀa', €i KT€VdC; OalJapm O11v.
6pwv 0& Tlivo€ ql€lJy€, IJli O' &À11 r.68w.
aip€l yap àvopwv 0lJlJaT', Ê~alp€l n6Ù1C;,
nilJnp1101 0 oÏKOUC;' wo· &X€l K11À11lJaTa. (TnJrln
WOl1lt'n
890-894)
1 praise and encourage you Menelaus, if you are to killl tour wife.
But when you see her, turn away lest she conquers you with love.
For she seizes the eyes of men, sacks cities,
and sets households on fire; such are her charms.
Notice how the repetition of forms of the vero aipew. which literally surround
the 'eyes' (893), emphasizes the power of Helen's 'charms' (K11À11lJaTa 894) to
•
captivate the gazes of men; she iiterally steals their eyes. Accordingiy, as we
mentioned earlier on in our argument, Menelaus promptly drops his sword at
the first sight of Helen·'.
Our next passage, from Sophocles, not only illustrates the wc~~;ings of
the gaze, but also several other points that we have been making in this
chapter. The remarkable Iines are a stichom)1hy between Philoctetes and the
young Neoptolemus from the play bearing the name of the former, The two
are preparing to depart from Lemnos, and sail to Skyros, Philoctetes' home
island, where Neoptolemus has promised to convey the sick man, ln the
process the youngster conceives 'desire' for Philoctetes' bow (!), which once
•
be\onyed to Heracles no less:
N. , , . Ti yèp h' ciÀÀ'
Ê~C; Àaj3€iv;
€i lJoi Tl T~WV TWVO' 0:l11!J€À11!J&VOV
napt;ppUrJK€V, Wc; ÀinC!>!Jli TC!> Àaj3€lV,
N, ~ Taina yàp Tà KÀ€lVà T~' ci vùv ëX€IC;:
~, Tain', où yàp ciÀÀ' ëerrl, àÀÀ' ci ~aerra~w X€poiv,
N, àp' ëerrlv Wcrr€ KàyyûEl€v 8cav Àaj3dv
KQi ~QerrâCQl !J€ npoaKOOQl 8' wan€p 8€ov
~. coi y', cl) TCKVOV, KQi TMO KClÀÀO TWV Ê!Jwv
onoiov civ OOl !;U\Jq>&pn Y€VliC€TQl.
N. KQi !Ji')v ÊpW Y€' Tèv 5' ëpw9' OÜTWC; ëxw'
€i !JO! 8C!Jl<;, 8cÀOlIJ' civ ' €i 5& !Ji') nâp€c;, (Philoctetes 651-661)
~,
N. , . ,What else do you desire to take along?
P. Any of these arrows that has been carelessly dropped,
., Cf. section five of this chapter.
64
N.
P.
N.
P.
N.
so that 1de notleave it for anyone to pick up.
Is thatthe famous bow that you are now holding?
It is. 1own no other except the one 1am carrying in my hands.
Is there any possibility thatl may take a closer look at it
and hold it a"d do obeisance to it as to a god?
To you, my SOil, this will be granted, and anything
else advantageous to you that 1can do.
1surely desire il. But 1desire it in this way: if it is right for me
then 1would want it: if 'lot, then let it gol
This passage clearly illustrates Sophocles' virtuosity in creating dramatic
tension. The very first of our quoted lines prepares us for the onset of desire
•
with Neoptolemus' hyperbolic application of the verb èpaw in a sentence
where meaning would require a milder verb of volition. The hint that eras is at
work here becomes stronger when Neoptolemus catches a glimpse of the
magical bow, and proceeds immediately to
expres~
his wish to take 'a closer
look' at il (Kàyyù9cv Sèav ÀaI3cîv 656); and when hp. does actually casi his
close gaze at it, his response remarkably echoes Plato's account of the
inception of desire. We recail that in Plato, the lover 'does obeisance' to the
beloved and would 'sacrifice to his beloved as to a god' (aèl3cTal ... SUOl civ
cixmcp . . . SCl!! Phar:drus 251 a). Quite similarly in the Phi/ocreles,
Neoptolemus' urge is to 'do obeisance' to the bow 'as to a god' (npoOKOOQl S'
•
cixmcp Scov 657). The onset of desire is further emphasized by repeated
application of forms of ëpWC; in line 660.
Neoptolemus' desire, ostensibly, is for the bow. But what does the bow
represent for Neoptolemus? At the opening of the play Odysseus, the young
man's superior officer and mentor in deceit, had pointed out to Neoptolemus
that his destiny was to conquer Troy, but that he could only accomplish this
with the aid of the bow:
O. aipcî Ta T~a TaùTa TT]V Tpoiav !lova.
N. OÙK Op' 0 nèpawv, ~ èqxiOKCT' &ÏjJ' eyw
O. M' civ où Kcivwv XWP\C;, M' èK&îva aoù. (Philocrr:res 113-115)
O. This bow alone conquers Troy.
65
N. So is it not to be 1who will sack her, as you said?
O. You cannot without it, nor it without you.
Thus the bow is necessarily bound up with Neoptolemus' effort to capture
Troy, his greatest ambition. Therefore 'desire' for the bow represents the
young man's aspiration for glory. In his study of the lheme of piely in the
Philoctetes, Charles Segal uncovers one aspect of this aspiralion4~:
Unlike Odysseus, Neoptolemus has an immediate sense of the
divinity connecled with the bow. For Odysseus the bow is a
necessary piece of equipment important for its shee r effectiveness
as an instrument of "victory" (78, 81, 105, cf. 134). For
Neoptolemus it soon becomes the token of entrance to an heroic
world of "glory" (657), gods, and demigods. His wish to handle it,
and "do obeisance to it as to a god" (npocrKùom e' wom:p ecov 657)
reflects ... the inborn nature, the heroic aspiration, of the son of
Achilles. Seeking the bow originally as a part of Odyssean guile
and profit (KEp5oc; 111), Neoptolemus discovers , through the
stirrings of his Achilean àpc'J1, the impulse worthy of his heroic
qxJOlc;. The bow is not the objective of cool and deliberate
calculation, as it is for Odysseus, but the center of a passionate
"love" or "Ionging" (ëp~ 660).
•
Professor Segal is certainly right to notice a noble element ir. Neoptolemus'
desire. Yet 1 think that the honourable aspect of Neoptolemus' aspiration
•
does not fully cover the complexity of the eros that overwhelmes him in the
passage we are discusslI.g. Let us see how our discussion at the beginning
of this chapter may offer us some insight into Neoptolemus' desire, and help
us supplement Professor Segal's C'.omments·
3
.
Il is important to emphasize that the classification of Neoptolemus'
response to the bow as ercs does not necessarily imply that his admiration of
the mal:ical weapon is completely innocent, free that is of covetousness.
Indeed as W. Arrowsmith's perœptive ideas on political ercs and our own
discussion of the erotic metaphor suggest, ë~ moY imply greedy and
42 Segal 19n.144.
43
Cf. the lhird section of this chapler.
66
lustful, even tyrannical ambition. Given that such usege of èpwe; was
commonplace ;n Athenian rhetoric, it is safe to say that the negative
implications of èpwe;, in the context of the scene from the Philoctetes that we
are discussing, would not have been lost on Sophocles' original Athenian
audience. The influence of Odyssean narrowly conceived
~cpooe;
and the
weight of Odysseus' orders to take the bow by guile, are both very much
alive in the young man at this point in the play. Notice that when Philoctetes
innocently makes reference to the boy's 'advantage' (aol 1;u'l'cpn 659), using
•
the same word that Odysseus had earlier used to convey 'advantageous
opportunities for deceil' ('ta OU)J'l'cpov'ta 131), Neoptolemus promptly
responds with 'eros' in the following line (Kai 1.tT1V Èplil 660). This indicates that
his eros is partly linked to his misguided pursuit of 'advantage' and 'profit'
through guile. Neoptolemus' desire then, is not 50 much innocent as
ambivalent, oscillating between what Pindar would cali 'Iawful' and 'unlawful'
eros, the former representing noble aspirations in accordance with one's
natural gifts ('l'ume;; 'l'ua in Pindar's Doric dialect) and in agreement with one's
fate alloted by the gods, and the latter representing greedy ambition which
vainly sceks to achiel/e beyond the limitations of one's native capacities and
divinely apportioned moira". In Neoptolemus' case, 'iawful' eros would
•
correspond to his honourable aspiration to win glory at war, and thus fulfil the
great potential inherent in his brave cpU<ne;, and the 'unlawful' element of his
desire would be his greedy lust to achieve the same end but through
deceiving Phlloctetes and stealing the bow. This would violate the limits
imposed on him by his Achillean cpU<ne; which would toleré.'te no use of i5oÀCX;
whatsoever.
On this important Pindaric distinction, see Bulman 1992.39 and following, together with
Bulman's note 7 p. 89. We have already encountered one passage in which this distinction is
at work; 1')thiun 11 (50-54), where eros in accordance with the gOOs' wishes is opposed to
desire for a tyranny. Note also a similar distinction in Alcman 58 PMG, where "Aphrodite" is
distinguished from the naughty little IlciPYCX; -Epw<;, who spends his time 'dashing over the
touch-me-not f1owers' (àKp tn' àv9fJ KajlaivlIlV).
44
67
The ambivalence of Neoptolemus' desire, and the dilemma that
confronts him at this point in the play, are underscored in the Iwo condi.ional
phrases contained in the last of our quoted lines: 'if it be 81:>11(:; , , . Iif not .
(661), Dramatic tension reaches a climactic point when Philoctetes proceeds
to answer that indeed it is
8e~.llC;
for the young man to take the bow (662 f.),
his consent building up the audience's expectation that the bow will soon
change hands for the first time in the play.
Hoping that our discussion aboya has clearly shown the importance of
•
the gaze as a theatrical device in tragedy and in contaxts concerning eros, 1
will close this section by noting that the role of the erotic gaze is not confined
to the tragic theatre, but informs lyric poetry as weil, more so than anywhere
else in Anacreon's very entertaining three verse confession of love for
Cleoboulos, a passage quoted by 'Herodian' to illustrate the use of u poetic
and rhetorical device known as the polyptoton:
KÀI:~oUÀoU >I&V tywy' èpew,
KÀI:~oùÀw 0' èm~aivo~al,
KÀI:ô/3ouÀov 0& OlOaKeW, (Anacreon 359 PMG)
•
1desire Cleoboulos!
1am mad over Cleoboulos!
1gaze at Cleoboulos!
Let us first try to get a feel for the effect of the polyptoton, the reptition of a
noun or adjective in its various cases, Once upon a time, after Philip the
Great had established control over ail of Hellas, his son Alexander sent a
message to his govemor at Athens through a messenger named Athlias
ÇA8ÀÎac;; genitive 'A8ÀÎou, This is also the genitive case of the adjective ci8Àloc;
[=miserable], which as a substantive takes the meaning of 'knave'), Legend
has it that Diogenes the Cynic commenteel on the event with the following
words: à8Àloc; !lep' à8ÀÎl!l01' 'A8ÀÎou npOc; à8ÀlOV ('knave at the side of knave
sends message through Knave to knave'). 1 think that Diogenes' remark
shows not only the remarkable effect that the polyptoton can produce, but
68
also its wickedly humorous ethos. After this it does not come as a surprise
that we tirst encounter this àevice in Archilochus!45
Thus we have an argument to support what we instinctively sense about
Anacreon's poem, that the poet treats his passion with humour, and that his
lJavia is only feigned madness. Indeed he is sane enough to apply poetic
devices to marvellous effect.
As for our translation of the poem, 1 can only say that it is difficult to
render in English the polyptoton using anything other than anaphora, the
•
repetition of a word usually at the beginning or end of successive verses.
This repetition in itself is very suggestive of the poet's feigned obsession with
his beloved. But the varying cases add another dimension to these lines.
As the third verse suggests, the main action of the poem is seeing. This
is evident from the prominent positioning of the verb
~lOOJ(&W
at the very end
of the poem. Accordingly it might prove interesting to try to interpret the
varying cases with reference to the act of seeing.
45 Archilochus 115W: vùv 6i: t\c~oc;
KciTQ~ t\c~ov o' àKOUC
..
IlÉv cipxc~ t\cwq>iÀou o' i:nlKpQTciv. 1 t\cwq>iÀ,!, oÉ nciVTQ
('But now Leophilos rules. power OOlongs to Leophilos. 1 everything
belongs to Leophilos. se keep on hearing "Leophilos! "). The difficulty in these verses lies in
the final clause. The polyptoton demands the accusative of t\c'i>q>tÀor, there, and ail codd.
report àKOUC, a verb which nOllT'ally govems a genitive of the pe:"'Jn heard. This makes
certain lhat the final clause does not mean 'listen to Leophilos' or 'obey Leophilos'. On the
other hand the verb ciKOÙ<Il does take an accusative of the thing heard, and, in th!s case, the
thing heard may weil be simply the name "Leophilos". In this Interpretation, the repetition of
the politician's nam~ vividly brings out Leophilos' commanding presence in the polis, and the
final clause would convey that to keep hearing his famous name is now an imperative: one
cannot do otherwise. We further notice that each successive -lause strengthens the basic
idea of the poem which is Leophilos' success. Progressive st.. ,thening of concepts is a
characteristic feature of Archilochus' poetry; (on this. see Fowlel t987.72 and references.
along with our own discussion in the conclusive section of this chapter). Thus the fragment
represents a mimesis of Leophilos' rise to power. This is reinforced by the effect of the
varying cases in the polyptoton. since in Greek, declension is KÀÎOIC;. a noun which suggests
to the imagination the image of a line al an angle directed upwardly from the ground. Our
two-Iine Archilochean ÀoyonaiyVlov is interesting to us here not only for ils wit, but aise
because in this fragment, as the etymology of the name "Leophilos" suggcsts, we encounter
the eartiest instance of portrayal of an ambitious politician as a 'lover of the people'. Thus. in
Archilochus we find what is perhaps the origin of Aristophanes' frequent portrayal of the
stock demagcgue as a 0'lllcPQcmic;. For discussion of passages from Aristophanes and Plato
in which we encounter the epithet olJlcPQati]c; (a striking example of the 'erotic metaphor' in
polities), see the note of Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover, on Thucydides 2.43.
69
ln class,
Professor Anne Carson lightheartedly suggested. if 1
accurately recall her thought, that declension suggests motion, and hence
the declension of Cleoboulos' name suggests that Cleoboulos himself is
moving in a way that allows the poet ta 'view' him from different angles
offering each time his response: first his desire, nex! his feigned madness,
and finally the act of viewing itself"S. 1think that this insight quite accurately
reflects the poet's intentions and is very much in harmony with Greek
thought. Declension is change of cases, and for the Greeks change is always
motion. Further, even the Greek ward for 'declension' (KÀlcnc;) can mean
•
'angular motion' which is the required motion here.
ln the same jocular spirit 1add my appreciation of the force of the final
verse. Hesychius defines i5l00K&ïv as 'ta look continuously without changing
the direction of vision'
(ol~À&n&lV
auV&x<ii<; TT]V èpamv
~T] ~&T~ciÀÀOVTQ).
Notice now that in line three Cleoboulos' name is finally fixed in the
accusative as the direct abject of the verb OlOOK&lIl in the continuous present.
This, and the meaning of OlOOK&ïv as elucidated by Hesychius, together
suggest that Cleoboulos himself is now 'motionless', fixed as the direct Obi",ct
of the poet's continuous gaze. From this point on, no other activity is taking
place aside from seeing. Appropriately Anacreon concludes his poem with
•
OlOOK&(&); there is nothing more for him ta say!
The above comments pretty much bring ta conclusion what we had ta
sayon the gaze. We will now tum ta 'Iuminosity' which, along with the gaze,
will prove ta be the most important concept linked with eras for our study of
tyranny.
2.8 THE LUMINOSITY OF DESIRE
let us begin this section by recalling Plato's expression of the beloved's
luminosity in the Phaedrus. In desire one sees the beloved'S face 'flash' (TT]V
ÔIjllv àarpc1moooav 254b); through sight, beauty 'gleams most clearly
46
McGiII University Feb.1994.
70
(aTlÀl3ov èvopyèaTOTO 250d); and finally the vision of beauty 'was radiant'
(tÀa~m:v
250d). We shall proceed to cite three illustrative passages from
Greek poetry, whlch exemplify imaginative expression of the 'flash', the
'gleam', and the 'radiance' respectively of desire.
We encounter the first of these in a Hellenistic epigram, specifically in
Asclepiades' portrayal of a girl who' knows weil. .. how to launch the swift
shaft of Aphrodite ... flashing desire upon the eye' (èTllaTOTOl ... ter80l ... 1
KÛTlplooe; WKÙ l3üoe; 1 ÏjJ&pov QaTpâmouero KOT' O~~OTOe; Asclepiades 20 HE).
•
A few centuries earlier, the superb Anacreon had described female beauty as
'gleaming with desire and shining with myrrh' (TlO8w QaTpâmouero Kci
~ÛPOICTl
y&yavW\lÈ:vT] (Anacreon 62 Bgk = Plutarch Erat. 4; cf. Anacreon 444 PMG).
Finally, we find what perhaps is the loveliest representation of the beloved's
'radiance' in the famous poem where Sappho defines the 'most beautiful' as
'whatever anyone loves' (t~~&VOl KQÀÀlCTTOV, tyw oi: Kiiv' OT- 1 TW Tle; tpaTOI
[Sappho 16 LP 3-4)), and proceeds to articulate her wish to see the 'radiant
sparkle of the face' of her own beloved who is absent (KQ~cipUX~O À~npov
10T]V TlpocrWTlW 16 LP 16). 1 note in passing that these lines reveal a link
between desire and vision that we have not yet explored. In Plato we saw
that desire originates in a luminous vision. Now in Sappho we discover that
•
the converse is also true, that luminous vision can originate in desire, in the
desiring imagination of the lover. In this particular case Sappho imagines the
vision of the absent Anactcria's radiant face47 .
ln this context, it would also be appropriate to consider a passage tram
Plutarch which refers to Alcibiades at a young age;
DOT] oi: TloÀÀwv Koi y&vvaiwv Q8pol~~È:vwv Kai Tl&pl&TlOVTWV, ci ~i:v
àÀÀOl KOTOcpav&ïe; ~erov TDV ÀCllJnpOTT]TO Tî')e; Wpoe; È:Kn&nÀT]YIJÈ:vOl
Koi 8&paTl&UoVT&e;, 0 oi: LWKpâTOUC; È:PCJJ<; lJÈ:yo lJapTUplOV ~v Tî')c;
cip&Tî')e; Koi &Ü<pùfac; TOÙ nQlOOc;, iiv È:lJcpalV~È:VllV Tc!i eiéel Koi
OIOÀ~TlOUCTOV èvopWv, cpo{3oU\J&Voc; oi: TOV TlÀOÙ1"OV Koi TO Q~iW\lo
Koi TOV rtpOKOTOÀCllJI3QVOVTO KOÀOK&iole; Koi XciplCTlV QaTWV Koi ~èvwv
---------4'
On the connedion between vision and desire in this poem, see Bumell 1983.290 note 35,
which contains a useful comparison of the role of vision in Gorgias' Encomium of UcJCD.
71
Kai OlJI.IlJcixwv 0XÀov, oi~ DV cilJuvelv Kat lJil neplopciv WC: lpUTèv F.V
ë1vSel Tèv oiKelOv Kapnov cino~ciÀÀov Kai i51alpSeipov. (Plutarch Life
of Alcibi:ldes 4.1)
•
It was not long before many men of noble birth gathered around
him and attended him. Most of these were obviously smitten with
the radiance of his youth and openly courted him. But it was the
love that Socrates had for him that bore good testimony to the
boy's excellence and great natural potential, which Socrates saw
radiantly manifest in his outward appearance, and, fearing the
influence of wealth and office upon him, as weil as the crowd of
citizens and foreigners and allies who preoccupied him with
flattery and favours, he was eager to protect the boy and not allow
such a flowering plant to throw away and waste its native fruit
ln Alcibiades' splendid outward appearance most Athenian gentlemen saw
the sensual attractiveness of the young man, while Socrates saw his ail
round excellence and outstanding potential as weil as the fragility of such
potential. In both cases what was seen is termed ÀalJnpOTTlC:. In both cases
the response is termed êPlllC;.
Il seems difficult ta escape the conclusion that the cammon visible
'property' which characterizes abjects of eros is this 'radiance', conveyed in
Plato by the verb ÀcilJnw (and the adjective ÀalJnpov) , in Sappho by the
adjective ÀcilJnpov, and finally in Plutarch by the noun ÀalJnpèTTlC:. Our next
•
step, in the following section, will be to investigate whether ÀalJnpôTTlC:
characterizes tyranny as weil, and if so, whether we can find a connection
between the ÀQlJnpôTTlC; of tyranny and eros for a tyranny48.
2.9 TYRANNY, DESIRE, VISION, AND LUMINOSITY IN THUCYDIDES
It is now time, at last, ta retum to tyranny and reward our painstaking
efforts, not to mention our reader's patience. It appears that in Thucydides'
history we find, in striking fashion, and in a way that recalls Archilochus'
poem, the required connection between desire, tyrannny, vision, and
luminosity.
48
For more on desire and AQj.lnpOTl'l<: see our Appendix Il,
72
The specific passage that we will discuss comes from the famous
Funeral Oration in honour of the dead in the first year of the Peloponnesian
War. In his speech, Pericles hopes that the surviving Athenians be spared
the fate of those who perished in battle. But he also insists that they live up
to the high standard set by the honoured dead, by maintaining a courageous
spirit against the foe. To accomplish this, he argues, requires not only
intellectual appreciation of the value of defending the city against her foes,
but also the corresponding patriotic sentiment. He continues as follows:
•
ciÀÀci IJciÀÀov Tilv Tr,e; noÀE:We; OÙValJlV KaS' illJl':pav i':pyw SE:wlJf:.VOUe;
Kal i:pacrrcie; YlYVOIJf:.VOUe; aùTr,e;, Kat, OTav ùlJiv lJE:yciÀ~ oo~n e:lVal,
i:vSUlJOUIJf:.VOUe; OTl TOÀIJWVTE:e; Kai YlYVWOKOVTE:e; Ta ol':ovTa Kat SV
Toie; i':pYOIe; aiOXUVOIJE:VOl àvopE:e; aÙTci sKTTioaVTO. (Thuc. 2.43)
1would rather want you actively to fix your gaze on the power of
the city every day so as to become her lovers, and, when you
realize that it is great, to remember that by daring, by knowing
what was necessary, and by showing their sense of honour in
action men have won ail this.
ln quite arresting fashion Pericles terms the required patriotic feeling eros, in
what perhaps is the most successfUi application of the 'erotic metaphor'. But
note also the striking presence of the 'gaze', which the Athenians are to cast
•
on the manifestations of the city's power until an 'impression' (oo~a) of
greatness is conveyed to them. What kind of an impression will this
impression of greatness be?
Thucydides makes this explicit in Pericles' nex! speech. Now, after the
plague, the Athenians are dispirited and wish to make a treaty with the
Peloponnesians. Now, the 'greatness' of the city is to be impressed on them.
They are advised ta be steadfast because what is at stake is their empire
(cipxTi 2.63.1) which is 'Iike a tyranny ... which is thought to be unjust to
acquire, but dangerous to abandon' (Wc; TllpQvviè5a ycip i:XE:Te: aÙTi]v, ... , iiv
Àaj3&iv lJi:v àè5lKOV è5OKE:l e:lVQl cicp. ~iVQl è5i: sl1IKivè5uvov 2.63.2). The power of
Athens is the power of a tyrant. The 'tyrannical simile' is not confined to this
73
passage. Athens' enemies used similar language in their own rhetonc. The
Corinthians indeed preferred metaphor to slmile: 'We allow a city to set itself
up as tyran!' (Tùpavvov oi; i:WIJE:V i:YKaSE:CTTaVal nO~IV 1.121.3). And Cleon.
who replaced Pericles at the forefront of Athenian politics alter the latter had
died, explicitly tells his fellow citizens: 'Vour empire is a tyranny' (Tupavvloa
i:XE:TE: TnV ciPXnv 3.37.2)49. Thus both the Athenians and thelr enemles
recognize that Athens' power is illegal, but it is also understood that those
who are in possession of such power expose themeselves to great danger if
•
they decide to let it go.
Pericles explains that. as a tyrant. Athens faces en':y (Té> i:nilllSovov
2.64.5), but it is worthwhile to bear the burden of envy for the sake of the
greatest things (i:ni IJE:Ylo-rOl<: 2.64.5)50. So we are led once again to the
'greatness' of Athens' power which is now revealed to be tyrannical. Finally.
Pericles proceeds to convey this greatness. which the Athenians were to see
by gazing at their city's power, with the word ~QlJnpOTl1<: (2.64.5).The relevant
passage deserves to be read in its entirety:
. . . 'E~Mvwv TE: ë)Tl -E~~l1VE:<: n~E:lCTTWV on ii~QlJE:V Kai no~éIlOl<:
llE:yiCTTOl<: civTéoXOIJE:v npèx; TE: C7ÙI-lnavTa<: Kai KaT' i:KciaTeu<; n6~lv
TE: Toi<: ncimv E:unopwTciTl1v Kai lJE:yiaTl1V <!J11l'\OQIJE:V. KaiTOl TaÜTa 0
lJi;v cinpàYllwv lléll\jJalT' civ, 0 oi; 15pàv Tl Kai aUTO<: J3ouMIJE:vcx;
~l1~WaE:1' E:l 15i; Tl<: IJT] KéKTl1Tal <jl8ovliOE:1. Té> 15i; IJlOE:1oSal Kai ~unl1poù<;
E:IVal i:v Tcji napOvTI nàm Ili;v uni'l~E: 15T] 0a0l eTE:POl i:Tépwv li!;iwaav
QpXE:lV. OaTl<: 15i; eni lJE:yiaTOl<: Té> i:ni<jl8ovov ~allJ3civE:l, 6p8We:
J3ou~E:ÙE:Tal. 1J10CX; Ili;v ycip OÜK éni no~ù civTéXE:l, T] 15i; napauTiKa TE:
ÀQlJnpOTl1e: Kai ée: TO enE:lTa 156!;a aiE:4Jvl1oTOC: KaTa~E:inE:Tal.
(Thucydides 2.64.3-6)
•
... Seing Greeks ourseIves, we ruled over the greatest number of
Greeks, and held our own in the greatest wars, both against their
combined forces, and against individual cities; and we lived in the
most prosperous and greatest city of them ail. And yet, the idle
would probably find blame in this; however, those who, Iike us,
Valuable studies of the representation of Athens as a tyranny in Thucydides include Knox
1957.53-106, Connor 1977. and McGlew 1993.183-212.
50 This is tyrannical rhetoric par excellence. Il is in simïlarly Macchiavellian terms lhat. in
Herodotus. Periander attempts to convince his son Lycophron not to refuse the tyranny that
is his to inherit (Hdt. 3.52).
49
74
have a certain will for action, will emulate us; and those who fail to
acquire what we have will resent us. After ail, to provoke hatred
and to break hearts has ever been the lot of those who deemed
themselves worthy of ruling over others. Whoever takes up the
burden of envy for the sake of the greatest things demonstrates
sound thinking. Never mind hatred; it soon recedes. On the other
hand, the present splendour is the unforgettable glory we leave
behind for the ages to come.
With this powerful passage then, a superb piece of Thucydidean prose, we
have made the greatest advance in our argument, in finally discovering that
•
the quality which characterizes objects of desir.::,
Àa~.lIlp6TT]C;,
which here of
course takes the sense of 'splendour', characterizes tyranny as weil. It is this
Àa~npOTT]C;
that the Athenians are expected to see when they cast their gaze
on the manifestations of their city's power; and with this perception they will
become Athens' lovers, and the idea of eternal greatness will be impressed
on their minds, much as, in Plato, it is
Àa~npoTT]C;
that the lover sees in the
beloved when he casts his gaze on the beloved's appearance, and with this
perception, his soul's impression of eternal beauty is recalled.
The logical conclusion then of the work done in this section would seem
to be the idea that as the beloved's radiance is to the lover, so the splendour
of tyranny is to the tyrannical 'lover'. This at first glance seems to be a
•
modest hypothesis; but perhaps it may be strengthened and may prove
fruitful in the remaining sections of this chapter, as we now bid farewell to
Thucydides and to fifth century Athens and return home to the age of the
tyrants and to lyric poetry in an effort to see if the ideas we have developed
so far can help us detect a theme centered around the concepts of tyranny,
desire, vision, and luminosity, in the earliest poetic representations of tyranny
in ancient Greece.
2.10 GOLO AS AN ASPECT OF TYRANNICAL IlAM7POT/-Œ
We now return to the very place from which we started, Archilochus
19W. In Thucydides we encountered a representation of tyranny based on
75
envy, desire, and on Iwo other concepts linked to desire, the 'gaze' and
luminosity. Archilochus' early representation of tyranny is quite similar in that
the concepts of desire and envy are prominently present in il: as for the gaze,
it is conspicuous in its absence. since line four implies. as we have seen. that
if only the manifestations of 'great tyranny' were at hand, they would probably
captivate the speaker's eyes to the point of conceiving eros for a tyranny.
However there is no evident presence of luminosity here. Yet It would
strengthen our argument considerably if we could only show that our
•
celebrated ÀClmpCrrTJC: (whose presence in Thucydides' portrayal of Athens as
a tyrant city indicated that tyrannical eros exhibits a structure parallel to that
of desire for beauty) is in some way present in the poem where we first
encounter both eros for tyrannical power, and tyranny itself.
What can be said with confidence is that there is one likely candidate
for luminosity in this poem: the 'abundant gold' of Gyges. It would be
Àuam:À&C: then at this point in our argument if we could demonstrate that gold
was considered an aspect of tyrannical lumlnosity capable of inspiring eros
We may be hopeful. After ail tyrannical ÀClmpOTTJC: is 'splendour'; gold can
eE'sily be seen as an aspect of splendour, as, conversely, splendour is a
property of gold. The difficulty lies in elucidating gold as an aspect of a
•
transcendent splendour, like that of Athens in Thucydides, the kind that can
inspire eros for a tyranny.
An excellent place 10 begin our study of gold is Bacchylides' third
epinician odes,. 1 say excellent because the ode was composed in praise of
Hieron of Syracuse, a famous tyrant, and an exceptionally wealthy one at
that; but also because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the
occasion of its composition. It was commissioned by Hieron to celebrate the
My discussion here does not aim to explicale the ode as a whole; il simply caters to the
requirements of the question poSed in this section. For comprehensive treatments of
Bacchylides' third epinician ode, 1 refer my reader to the valuable discussions of Carson
1984.111-119, and Bumelt 1985.61-76. 1 will be frequently referring 10 both of the above
mentioned works.
S'
76
vietory he won with his chariot team at the Olympic games of the year 468, a
vietory, !1owever, for which Hieron himself was only marginally responsible
since he did not dnve the chariot himself, but simply paid its expenses. His
wealth therefore boùght the victory, and this weaith is 'Ilhat the poet was left
to praise, something which Bacchylid€:s quite masterfully accomplished.
Since the discussion in this section represents our first serious
enr:ounter with epinician poetry in our essay. we may begin our study of
Bacchylides' ode with a rather naive (but import?nt) question that naturally
•
comes out of our remarks in the previous paragraph. Wealth in itself does not
seem at flrst glance to be a particularly appropriate focal point of praise in
epinician odes. which are meant to commemorate atn/etic victory. How then
would Bacchylidp.s justify his praise of Hieron's wealth? To approach this
question. we should consider the relation between epinician poetry and
wealth generally.
Professor Anne Carson notes that in the epinician context. the
obligation of wealth is 'to finance both occasions of victory and the poP.try
that saves them from decay in the tireless exercise of the virtue called
mega/oprepeia by Aristctle (Ech. Nic. 4.2)'52. Wealth then and epinician
poetry meet in financing, specifically in the expenditure of money to finance
•
the games, to commission the victory odes, and to provide for the appropriate
festivities. Therefore what matters for epinician poetry is not wealth in itself,
but its expenditure. Moreover, expenditure of money for specifie purposes
could be, and was, considered a kind of virtue, an Qp&TT]S3. But àpsTT]
(outstanding skill and achievement in appropriate contests) is precisely what
epinician poetry praises and immortalizes. Therefore if the Hieron has
demonstrated outstanding skill (àp&TT]) in the expenditure of his wealth, then
pe~haps
Bacchylides is not violating the boundaries of epinician ethics in his
praise of the tyrant. As Professor Carson writ€:s, 'for this p,)èm what is
Carson 1984.112.
On the cipt:TTJ of ~tYQÀonptntIQ, the poUties associated with it, ils importance in epinician
poetry. and ils value in the study of Greek tyranny, see Kurke 1991.163 and following.
50
53
77
significant about Hieron is how he uses his money'Sol. And indeed this is the
course that Bacchylides follows in order to justify his praise of Hieron. With
reference to the tyrant's magnificent expenditures, Bacchylides says that 'the
man has done weil, and therefore it would be an ugly thing to keep silen!'
(npà~avTl O' eù où cpépel KOOIJOV Olwna 94-95). Indeed it is the care of the
Muses that such fair deeds do 'not perish' but remain 'unforgettable' (où
IJlvù8el
90 .'1Àa8eiÇl 96). We may thus prosaically express Bacchylides'
justification of his praise of Hieron as: 'wealth properly spent is wealth that is
•
not to be kept in silence, but to be spoken out publicly in song of praise that
gives immortal fame' .
A=rdingly, in the ode 'Ile are discussing, Bacchylides praises Hieron's
wealth with enthusiasm. On this, Professor A. P. Burnett writesss:
The crown in a sense didn't really belong to Hieron, but the money
that bought it did, and instead of avoiding or disguising this plain
truth, Bacchylides embraced it with audacious applomb by making
the victor's riches the open subject of his song. Hieron's wealth is
treated exactly as another victor's athletic success might have
been, for it is evoked as actuality, generalized with gnomes,
probed for inner excellence, rendered dynamic by means of myth,
and displayed in its finest outward form which of course is gold.
For the man of gold the poet sang a golden song...
•
Indeed, the entire poem blazes with dazzling images of gold and light.
Tyranny, lumin~sity, and gold, then, are major concepts in this ode, and
54 Carson 1984.111. My italics. Especially relevant in this context are also the remarks of the
late Professor Leonard Woodbury on Pindar's altitude towards money: 'Pay and profit are
seen [by Pindar) to be more dangerous and are more markedly depreciated than naked
wealth. But ail are on the same footing in finding their value in sp.rving the ends to which
Pindar and his society have given their approval. He is com.istent in praising the
conspicuous use of wealth for these ends and in slighting it~ mere acquisition and
accumulation. This is important because both ancient scholiasts and modem commentators
have found fault with :his altitude, in the belief that his praise is given to wealth for its own
sake and that his exhortations to spend conceal an unsatisfied greed for money. Such an
opinion cannot withstand an unprejudiced reading of his own wnrks' WoJodbury 1968.539).
On the praiseworthiness of expenditure of wealth for commendable purposes (tUl:pytaio,) as
a conventional theme in epinician poetry, see also the masterful discussion in Bundy 1988
[1962).85-91, with particular reference to Bacchylides' third epinician ode in p. 89. On the
same topic. see Miller 1981.141-143, with particular referenœ to Pindar's praise of Hieron.
55 Bumett 1985.67.
78
make it a most appropriate locus for our study. Our discussion will concern
itself, mainly, with one particular passage, in which there is an explicit
association of gold with
•
•
Àa~mpOTT]C;:
epOT]C1& oi: Àaèc;
"à TplC1&UOailJwv àvnp,
Oc; napà ZT]VOC; Àaxwv
nÀ&iC1TapxOv 'EÀÎ\àvwv yi:pac;
otO& nupytuSi:vTa nÀOùTOV IJnlJ&ÀalJcpapi:ï KPÙnT&lV C1KClT<p."·
13Pù&l lJi:v i&pà 13oueÙTolC; &opTaic;.
13pùouC1l cplÀ~&viac; àYUlai'
ÀàlJn&l o' uno lJaplJapuyaic; è XPUC1Oc;.
Ù\jJIOr.110àÀTWV Tpmoowv C1Tae&VTWV
népole& vaoù. TOel IJt.Y1C1TOV àÀC1oc;
<l>oi13ou napà KaC1TaÀiac; p&i:epOlC;
t.&Àcpoi OI&nOUC1l. e&èv e&èv TIC;
àYÀaï~i:ew yàp àplC1Toc; OÀ13wv. (Bacchylides
Epin. 3.9-22)
And the people cried out:
"Ah! thrice blessed the man
who has received as his lot from Zeus
the prize of widest rule among the Hellenes,
and knows how not to coneeal his towering wealth
within the black cloak of darkness!"
Altars brim with the festivity of sacrifiee,
hospitable streets are filled with people,
radiant with dazzling gleam is the gold
of superb, intricately crafted tripods set up
before the temple where, in the magnificent grove
of Phoebus close by Kastalia's streams
Delphians celebrate. It is god, yes god that one
must glorify, for that is the best of ail good fortune!
As verse seventeen makes abundantly clear, the tyrant's gold, in the form of
splendid offerings to the Delphic shrine, is characterized by Àal.ll1pOTTjC;. It
would be feeble, however, to assume on this basis that tyrannical gold
represents the kind of luminosity associated with desire. For that luminosity,
as we have seen in our study of Plato, is the aspect of eternal and divine
beauty which the lover pereeives in the (;Quntenance of the beloved. On the
79
other hand, Bacchylides here may simply be referring to the material
brightness of gold.
Il would be templing al lhis point to argue that both of the required
properties, eternity and divinity, are satisfied in the person of the god to
whom the dazzling gold tripods are dedicated: and hence that through
association with Apollo, Hieron's gold attains luminosity that goes weil
beyond material brightness. This is a more reasonable suggestion. but still
an anaemic one; for it is open to the same charge as the one that came
•
before il. If we are to avoid begging the question we must attempt
convincingly to remove the possibility that Àal.mpoTT\C; here refers merely to
the metallic glitter of the gold. Then perhaps the road will open for us to link
the luminosity of the tyrant's gold to the divinity of the god. Thus we must
now proceed to offer an explication of Bacchylides' imagery of Àa~mpOTT\C;.
Notice in our quoted passage that Hieron receives cheering acclaim for
knowing 'how not to keep his towering wealth concealed under a dark cloak'
(13-14). What has Hieron done to deserve the acclaim? First of ail he has
cunningly displayed his wealth in his glorious vietory at the games. Further,
the poet does not forget to mention his use of wealth for immaculate
performance of the necessary sacred rites and organization of the
•
appropriate festivites at the vietory celebration (15-16). But the most
convincing demonstration of Hieron's surpassing ciPCT~ are the sacred
offerings of solid gold at Apollo's shrine (17-22), with which Hieron outdid ail
Greeks in honouring the god at Delphi (64-66). In the following lines wealt;,
becomes gold (17), conœalment gives way to magnificent display (17-21),
and darkness becomes Iight (ÀC1Ilncl
o'
ûno lJaplJapuyalc; 17). For the
purposes then of our present argument we render Bacchylides' poetic
reasoning prosaically as: 'wealth properly spent is wealth that is not kept
cloaked in darkness, but displayed openly in the form of gold that gives off
brillianœ'. Now compare this statement with our previous gloss on the poet's
justification of his praise of Hieron's expenditures: 'wealth properly spent is
80
wealth that is not to be kept in silence, r)ut to be spoken out publicly in song
of praise that gives immortal fame'. The two statements are completely
symmetrical. Silence corresponds to darkness, speech to display, song to
gold, immortal fame to brilliance
Sû
.
These correspondences are very suggestive. Gold in this poem is not
simply a metallic substance, but it is what wealth becomes when it is
displayed in the most excellent way, the image of the OpCTT) of this victor's fair
deeds, which finds its counterpart in the song that praises OPCTT),
Bacchylides' 'golden' song. The 'transcendence' of goId in this ode will help
•
us understand the interesting movement in our quoted passage from mere
'wealth' to 'gold'. What was sirnply nÀoCrroC; when concealed, becomes
xpua6c; with Hieron's conspicuously 'pious' offerings at Apollo's shrine,
through a poetic act of 'transubstantiation,57.
Therefore the ÀOl-mpOTT]C; of Hieron's gold is not simply metallic glitter,
but corresponds to the 'immortal light' of his fair deeds which, through the
action of the poem, will remain undiminished even as the mortal body will
wither away (OpCTOC; YC ~tv oU ~lVueCI 1 13POTWV èi~o aw~aTl cpi:yyac;, 1 OÀÀcl
Moùaa VlV Tpi:CPCl 90-91). The similarities between the representation of the
luminosity of tyrannical goId in Bacchylides' ode, and of tyrannical splendour
•
in Thucydides are quite striking: as the napau-riKa Àa~npôTT]C; of Athens as a
tyrannical power will be her 'unforgettable glory' (~~a àCÎlJvT]aTac; Thuc.
2.64.6) for the ages to come, so the
À~npôv
gold of Hieron's tyrannical
wealth remains an 'imperishable light' for ail ages, through the influence of
Bacchylides' poetry.
On the corresponding pairs silence/darkness and speech/display see Carson 1984.114. On
gold as an 'imperishable substanœ' and therefore as an appropriale image of song that
graces the victor with 'imperishable fame' (d,toc; àcp9tTOV), see Nagy 1990.278, n. 21. On the
appropriateness of 'gold' as an image of this particular ode of Bacchylides, see Bumett
1985.67, partly quOled al the opening of lhis section. Finally, on ÀQ~np<iTl)C; as an image of
immortal fame, cf. Thucydides 2.64.6 with tex!, translation, and discussion in our previous
section.
57 On ~ransubstantiation' of wealth into 'gold' and 'Ught' as the 'peculiar achievement of Ode
3', see further Bumelt 1985.67-68. On gold as a symbol of transcendent expenditure see
Carson 1984.115.
56
81
Our discussion has eventually turned to the topic of immortality, and it
seems an appropriate moment to bring in the person of the god to whom
Hieron's radiant offerings of gold were dedicated. W~ recall that this act of
dedication manitested, in the most appropriate way, Hieron's apcTI1 in the use
of his money, As Bacchy!ides emphasizes, the ode serves to 'nurture' (TPCcpCl
92) the radiance of Hieron's fair deeds of piety, radiance reflected in the
imagery of Àa~np6TI1C; in the poel's description of the tyranl's offerings to the
god at Delphi. In the most direct sense then, the transcendent luminosity that
•
characterizes Hieron's gold derives from its association with the god. To
make this more clear we will discuss the implications of the two remarkable
lines that close our quoted passage (21-22).
We may appropriately start tJy attempting to explicate the moderately
difficult word ëÀj3oc;. This word often denoted 'wealth', and was used as a
synonym of nÀoùTOC;. Many speakers however applied it in the sense of
'happiness' or 'good fortune' with the unquestioned understanding that 'good
fortune' derives from material prosperity. So in a famous conversation from
Herodotus' hisiory between Croesus and Solon, the former considers it selfevident that he is the most 'fortunate' (ëÀj3loc;) of ail men, because he is the
wealthiest (Hdt. 1.30.3, 1.34.1). However there did surface alternative ideas
•
on what makes for 'good fortune'. Thus certain sophisticated speakers, such
as Croesus' interlocutor, could boldly abstract the 'happiness' component of
ëÀj3oc; and altogether rid the ward of its association with wealth, applying it ta
happiness that derives from sources other than material prosperity. Sa Solon
can confuse Croesus by counting as supremely ëÀj3l0C; people like Tellos
(because he produced excellent sons and grandsons, and then died
gloriously in battle), and Iike the pir of Cleobis and Biton, (because after
they performed a surpassii!gly pious deed, Hera granted them peaceful
death), and sa fort., (Hdt. 1.30.5, 1.31.5)58.
58
For more on the meaning and colour of 6Ajloc;, see Nagy 1990.243-249.
82
Returning now to our poem, it seems that Bacchylides was aware of the
multivalence of
ëÀ~l.Ilv
ëÀ~oc;
This is evident in his use of the partitive genitive
(22). But he cunningly reinstates wealth into the concept by claiming
that his victor has achieved supreme
honour of Apollo. Specifically Hi.;;:ron's
(conveyed by
aYÀoï~tew
ëÀ~oc;
ëÀ~oC;
through his rich offerings in
cor.sists in 'the act of glorifying'
220) the god. But as we have seen,
ëÀ~OC;
refers
not to an act but te a state, a condition. How are we to understand the poet's
curious statement?
•
let us focus or the presence of the verb aYÀal<:;!:lv in line 22. The word
is giver. special prominence through 'unparalleled' crasis,59. It means 'to
glorify'; more specifically to bestow 'light', oïYÀTJ, on persons or things. Hieron,
through his splendid offerings, bestows the light of ÀOllnpCrrllC; on Apollo. But,
as we have seen it is this very act that turns Hieron's wealth into gold that is
Ào~mpov
in the first place, and graces Hieron with a q>&yyoC; that is never
diminished. The act then of magnifying the ÀOI.mpoTllC; of the god finds its
complement in Apollo's act of bestowal of such 'radiance' on both Hieron and
his wealth, and represents a characteristic instance of true XaplC;, explicated
by Professor Carson as an act of grace that entails 'both specifie cost and
infinite recompense'so. Since Hieron is mortal, his piety is characterized by
•
finitude. His offerings involved extravagant, but still finite, expenditure of
ploutos which is subject to decay. The specifie pious act, the magnification of
Apollo in light, was also characterized by temporal finitude as are ail acts
conveyed by verbs (in this case the verb aYÀai1;l.Il). For this temporally finite
act his recompense is infinite. His perishable material offering became
imperishable gold. The light that he bestowed on the god in a moment was
returned in ÀOllnPOTllC; conspicuous at Delphi which will remain with him as
an eternal q>tyyoC; forever nurtured by the Muses (and hence by Bacchylides'
ode) as his mortal body perishes, through the agency of the god Apollo,
'" Jebb ad foc.
60
Carson 1984.115.
83
whose divine act of recompence transcends the bounds of mortal time. The
verb charactrerizing Hieron's mortal act becomes in the noun form of oÀ!3oc; a
never ending condition of best good fortune 6 '.
The above argument serves to show that conspicuous dedications at
the Delphic shrine grace the goId of tyrants with a luminosity that goes weil
beyond material brightness: indeed it brings thoughts of divinity to mind. It
may be argued that Bacchylides' intricate imagery of tyrannical gold anà
luminosity was partly reflected in the more common perception. We recall
•
that Bacchylides attributes the praising cry that Hieron knows how
\0
display
his wealth, and therefore how to make it luminous (verse 9 and following), to
the crowd gathered at Olympia. One could complain that the poet is not
sincere when he attributes such cheering acclaim to a person who was 'one
of the most ... unpopular men of his time ... also a cruel ru1er. ,62 While
there seems to be little doubt that tyrants such as Hieron were unpopular, it
may still be the case that Bacchylides' depiction of the spectators' response
to Hieron's success is more accurate than we might imagine. Tyranny in
ancient Greece always provoked an ambivalent response in its audience.
This is evident in representations of Greek tyranny from Thucydides
description of the mixed feelings of admiration and resentment that Athens'
•
power inspired, ail the way back to the èpw<; / àyaiOiJal contrast in
Archilochus.
lt is an appropriate moment to reintroduce Gyges into our argument. In
Bacchylides we saw that the Àa\.lTlpOTTj<; of tyrannical gold, best manifested in
conspicuously pious offerings, grants tyranny an air of divinity, much as, ln
Plato and elsewhere, the
Àa~lTlpOTTj<;
of beauty graces the beloved's
appearance with a divine aspect that inspires eros. We recall that it was
conpicuous offering'3 at Delphi that made Gyges' gold famous in ail of
Greece, offerings described by Herodotus as a 'wonder to behold' (Saul.la
On tne crucial theme of Xàpl~ in relation to lime in the poem we are discussing, see
Carson 1984.115 and following.
62 Bumelt 1985.66.
6'
84
ioéa9al Hdt.1.1.4), which could make the beholder exclaim "8EWV Ë:pya" with
reference to Gyges' good fortune (Archilochus 19W 2-3). Perhaps then such
beho/ders perceived a certain transcendent radiance in tyrannical gold which
would inspire in them the desire that Archilochus terms eros. Our argument
on Bacchylides strongly suggests that such trar"scendently divine Àal.mpOTI]C;
was indeed perceived in appropriately disp/ayed tyrannical go/d, but
Bacchylides makes no reference to eros. For this we will havI;: to search
elsewhere.
•
An interesting meditation on the political significance of gold is offered
in the voluminous history of Diodorus of Sicily. After offering an account of
the hideous murders committed by Sulla and his party, the copious historian
attributes the calamities of Rome, at this time in her history, to Marius'
'desire' for wealth; then Diodorus proceeds to offer a critique of such 'desire'
for wealth. The historian's word for desire here is not yet Ë:PW<; (after ail
Diodorus is, decided/y, a prose writer), but ém8ulJla: (ém8ulJ1]8évTa 37.29.4,
ém8ulJl]OavTac;, 37.30.1
ém8UlJlac; 37.30.2). Following a long tradition of
Greek historians and didactic poets, Diodorus goes on to muse on the
destructive effects of covetousness of wealth; men will De corrupted by it, will
do any /awless deed for it, and will bring disasters upon their cities (37.30.1-
•
2). What a better place this world would be, argues Diodorus, if only people
valued wisdom as much as they value gold. To add force to his argument,
our late historian quotes a choral passage from tragedy (37.30.30):
nOTvla acxpia, au lJOl àvoavE;
ôÀ!3ou o' i:lJoi lJTJ Xpuaéou cpaEvvàv
ciKTlva oailJlllv OIOOll]
nâpoc; aO<pîac; ii Tupavvioa.
luo<; ànlllTci.Tlll
KEITal KaÀO<; I3l]aaupOC; ôn!l npoai:!3a. (adesp.130 TGF)
"Lady Wisdom, you be my delight.
May the gods not grant me the radiant light
of golden prosperity, sooner than Wisdom,
nor do 1wish to be granted tyranny.
85
At the greatest distance from Zeus
stands he to whom beautiful treasure has arrived."
Again we find gold and tyranny in close association. Notice that the ôl\.J3oe;
that material prosperity procures, here, as in Bacchylides, is radiant with
golden light, even as it is disparaged, It is evident that this tragedian senses
that gold is a formidable opponent to his valued 'Lady Wisdom' in the
preferences of men: in the poet's complicated arrangement of words, tyranny
and gold Iiterally surround poor Wisdom!
ln our passage tyranny, gold, and luminosity are ail present. Add to this
•
Diodorus' srong insistence on
tmeu~üo,
and we are getting very close to eros.
Diodorus recognizes that in this impe,iect world most people, sadly, would
prefer tyranny and gold over wisdom: and he quotes yet another passage
fram tragedy that illustrates the power of the desire that gold could effect,
The passage runs as follows (37.30.2):
•
Wxpuae, J3l\.aCTrTlI..Ia XeovOc;.
olov èpwTa I3POT0101 cpheY~:le;
navTlllv KpaTICTrc, navTlllv TÙpaVVC,
nohCI..l0ùOl 0' 'Apellle;
Kpciaaov èXlllV oùva"llv,
navTa eel\.YCle;' tni yàp '()p<p&iale; l..Ii:v lOOa1e;
cincTo oevopco Kai
ellpWV aVOT'Ta yevT).
aoi oi: Kai Xetilv nàaa Koi noVTCX;
[Ka'l 0 nOl..ll..ll1aTlllp •APllc;, (adesp,181 TGF)
"Gold offshoût of the earth,
What passionate desire you kindle among mortals,
Mightiest of ail, tyrant of ail!
For men at war your strength
is mightier than that of Ares.
Ali things are under your spell, At Orpheus' songs
trees followed and
foolish breeds of animais,
but you draw after you the entire earth and sea
[and ;:;11 devising Ares"
86
At last then, we discover that gold indeed was thought to 'kindle'
passion that could be termed eros. In our Appendix Il we offer a reasonable
argument that the 'fire' that desire kindles originates in the Ào!.mpoTI1C;
o~
the
beloved. In the case of gold this ÀOI.mpOTI1C; would be the cpo<:vvà àKTic;
mentioned in the passage we quoted just before this one. On the basis of this
point, and taking into account the work done in the whole of this section, we
may safely conclude that tyrannical gold was thought to give off a kind of
luminosity that
•
considerably
contributed
to
the
general
'splendour'
(ÀollnpOTI1C;) of tyranny's outward manifestations, splendour which, as we saw
in our study of Thucydides, was represented as being perceived by tyranny's
observers, could draw the gazes of these observers, and thence inspire in
them a passionate desire that could appropriately be termed eros.
Moreover the desire that gold inspires was experienced so powerfully,
that the unknown author of our passage could establish a Iink between gold
and tyranny that goes weil beyond what we intended to argue. Through
metaphor, our unknown tragedian identifies gold and tyranny: in a sense,
gold is the tyrant!
•
2.11 DESIRE, TYRANNY, VISION, AND ~HE LUMINOSITY OF GOLO IN
BACCHYLIDES 20B SM.
ln the previous section we considered Bacchylides' third epinician ode,
and argued that the visual aspect of tyranny is characterized by luminosity,
which derives mostly from the splendid gold that is associated with tyranny.
We also saw, in the two previous sections, that this vision of tyrannical
splendour is represented in Thucydides, in lyric poetry, and in choral
passages from tragedy, as being able to inspire in the beholder powerful eros
for a tyranny. In the present section we shall retum to Bacchylides to
strengthen further our hypothesis concerning the Iinked concepts of tyranny,
desire, vision, and luminosity, by considering a passage in which the
converse statement (that powerful eros may bring about, in the lover's
87
imagination, a vision of tyrannical splendour characterized by the luminosity
of gold) appears ta hold. The lines that follow come from an encomium
commissioned by Alexander 1 of Macedonia 63 :
Wl3apl3m: IJ'1KE:TI naooaÀov <puÀao[owv
cmaTovov À[ljyupàv Kannauc yàpuv'
ocùp' CC; clJàC; XE:pac;' oplJaivw Tl nE:lJn[CIV
XPÛOCOV Mouoàv 'AÀc!;avopw mcpov
Kai oulJnoa[ialjOIV ayaÀIJ' [i:Vj ciKaOCO[OlV,
CÙl'C VE:WV à[naÀov yÀUKCl' àjvaYKa
ocuolJcvàv K[UÀLKWV 8aÀ"l'l]0l 8u-,J[ov,
KûnplOOC; T' i:Àn[ic; <01>aI8ûoon <ppE:jvac;,
•
àIJIJClyvUIJE:V[a Ll.lovuoiOIOIj OWpOlC;'
àvopaol <) ù\lJO[TaTW nE:lJnclj IJCpLIJV{ac;'
aÙTIK[a]lJcv Tl{oÀlwv KpaOCjlJva À[ÛC1,
nàO[1 0' àv8ptilnolC; lJovap]xr,O[ClV OOKCl'
XPU[Ojt!> [0' i:ÀE:<pavTI TC lJaplJ[aipjOU01V OiKOl,
nupe<p[ épOl OC KaT' aiyÀaCVT]a nOVTOV
vacc; àYO[UOIV an' Aiyûmou IJE:YlaTOV
nÀOÙ1'ov' Wc; [nivovTOC; oPllaivcl KE:ap, (Bacchylides 20B SM 1-16)64
Dear lyre do not hang on the peg anymore
silencing your clear voice with its seven notes.
Come ta my hands, l'm eager ta send something
ta Alexander, a golden wing from the Muses.
•
An adornment for banquets atthe month's end
when the sweet compulsion of the jostling cups
warms the delicate spirits of young men
and Aphrodite sends hope that makes their hearts flulter
when mingled with the gifts of Dionysus,
It sends men's thoughts to the greatest heights.
Immediately he is destroying the fortifications of cities
and he thinks he will be sole ruler over ail men.
His house gleams with gold and ivory,
and wheat-bearing ships over the dazzling sea
For historical information on Alexander 1"The Philhellene", see Herodotus 5,17"22,
The poem continues afler line 16, but is badly damaged, On the content of the lines that
follow afler verse 16, see our comments at the Closing of this sedion, together with Nagy
"3
64
1990.287.
88
bring great wealth from Egypt. Such are
the things that the drinking man imagines in his heart.
Very (itlle has been written about these exquisite verses, but what little has
been written
IS
both succinct and valuable. Critics mostly note the quite
striking similarities between this Bacchylidean poem and Pindar's encomium
for Thrasyboulos of Acragas (Pindar fragment 124ab SM)6S Sir Richard C.
Jebb passes his expectedly wise judgement on the relative merits of the two
fragments: 'Pindar excels in splendour of imaginative diction; Bacchylides in
•
vivid detail and playful fancy,66. In the notes that accompany Robert Fagles'
translation of our Bacchylidean encomium, Professor Adam Parry draws our
attention to the fact that 'the Alexander of this poem was an ancestor of
Alexander the great. The brilliant and barbaric tone that Bacchylides catches
in it is worthy of the later world conqueror,6; The 'barbarian tone' that Parry
notices in this poem is also quite appropriate to a song about ambitions for
world conquest and for establishment of tyrannical 'single and exclusive rule
over ail men' (Tlàa[l èS' àvElp<.i>TlOlC; ~ovapJXTla[&lV 12)6S. And our oWTl discussion
here aims to emphasize that both the element of 'brilliance' that Parry detects
a,'d the 'vivid detai!' of Bacchylides' visual imagery that Jebb observes, are
G9
appropriate to a poem in which desire and tyranny are brought together
•
•
., For a word-by-word comparison of the Iwo fragments, see van Gronigen 1960.100-10:<'.
66 Jebb 1905.418.
67 Fagles 1976.123. Fagles' forceful translation brings out the 'brilliant and barbarie' tone of
the poem in exemplary fashion.
66 On the overlap belween the terms Ilovapxo<; and tùpavvo<;, see our Appendix III. We
simply note here that the llovapXia that Bacchylides mentions in line 12 of this poem, refers
to rule oblained by violent means, specitically by conquest. 'Rule oblained by violent means'
is precisely the meaning of the word tupQvvil'l in line 20 of Archilochus fragment 23W, the
poem in which the ward 1yranny' appears for the tirst time in the Greek language. On
Archilochus 23W, see section seven of our tirst chapter and references. Professor Gregory
Nagy aise sees tyranny in Bacch. 20B SM. He notes: .... the poet visualizes in the same
poem [20B SM] the intoxicated lightheartedness of a symposium at the very moment when
the singing and dancing get under way; it is in this setting that the poet's thoughts can
converge on wealth. sensuality. and tyranny' (Nagy 1990.287).
GO ln our Bacchylidean fragment, desire is present in the form of 'â hopeful expectation sent
by Aphrodite' l':ÙrtplOO<; T' tAnK: 8), and tyranr'i is present in the verb 1l0VapXt1aCIV (verse
12: see our previous note). We point out that in spite of the obvious similarities between
Bacchylides 20B SM and Pindar 124ab SM, Pindar's poem does not refer at ail to desire or
to tyranny.
89
We commence our discussion with consideration of the arresting image
of the 'golden ... wing from the Muses' (xpuoeov Mouaàv ... mepov 1) which
dominates the opening stanza. It is most certainly a symbol for the poem
itselfO; but the mention of the wing also brings vividly to mind the wings of
desire
•
•
71
,
and prepares us for the onset of eros further on in the poem n
'0 For numerous examples of the wing as a symbol of poetry, see D. A. Campbell's note on
:rheognis 237 in Campbell 1967.362. Consider also Homer's n,CpoI:V'O tnco.
" Thus wings tran~port both words (from speaker to Iistener. and from poetto audience) and
eros (from beloved to lover). For a captivating comparative study of the wings that transport
language and the wings of desire. see Carson 1986.49 and following.
The wing is also, naturally, an image of release and freedom (consider for instance Eur.
10" 1238-1240. li.:r,,·f<,- 1157-1160, /lipp. 732ft.. and Aesch. Suppl. 776ff. 1thank Mr. A. T.
Kakkos for drawing my attention to these passages). Bacchylides' encomium gives a strong
impression of the idea of release. It begins with the image of the lyre releaSed from its peg.
Then the poet releases with his hands the song on wings. This impression of release is
enhanced by the busy motion of the jostling cups in verse 7. and of thE; sh.ps over the
gleaming sea in verses 15-16, and the same idea is reinforced by the concentration of verbs
in stanzas three and four. That the presence of release should be fell in a poem mentioning
the name of Dionysus 'gOO of wine and escape from everyday reality' (Heinrichs 1984.209) is
not surprising at ail. To release mortals from their everyday worries is indeed one of the
main functions of Dionysus Lysios. the 'Looser' or 'Liberator' (On Lysios and Lya,os as
epi!hets of Dionysus. see Otto 1965.97,106.113: also Segal 1982.21-22, and 100. n. 31).
Pindar, in fr. 124ab SM. an informai symposiastic encomium which, as we have already
noted. bears strong similarities with Bacchylides fr. 20B SM (see the opening of our
discussion in this section). memorably states that through the effect of Dionysus (t"OlVUOOlO
3), 'weariseme cares of mortals rush straight out of tha chest' (ov9pwnOlv KOI'0'OlÔl:Ce:;
olXOVTO'l'EpIj.lVo, 1 OTll9EOlv t~Ol 5-6); and similarty Euripides speaks of 1he sen of Semele ...
who extinguishes worries' (TOV !CI'EÀOe:;, ... 6c:; TOÔ' txn ... ononouoo, TC l'CpIj.lVoe:; 11:1<'<'1"',376-381). Bacchylides presents US with an interesting variation on this theme; he does not
explicilly say that Dionysus releases mortals !rom l'cpIj.lvo,. in the sense of 'cares', 'worries',
or 1roubled thoughts' (although his images imply this). but he states instead that Dionysus
has a hand in sending human l'CpIj.lVO' to the loltiest regions (ovlIpoo. Ô· UljJoITOTOl nCl'nc'l
l'cpIj.lvloe:; 10). Thus l'cPll'VO' leave the ground state level of 'worries' and become lolty
'ambitions'. On the meaning of l'CptIlVO as 'ambition' in this poem, see Nagy 1990.287 and
Nagy's note 63 p. 287. On the meaning of the same noun as 'ambition' in epinician poetry
generally. see Slater 1969.329. Note aise that the same power of à.ovuooc:; /luo.oc:; that
'frees' humans from their worries (10 relea.,e· or 10 free' in Greek is, of course. Àoc,v, from
which Dionysus' epithet /lùo.oc:; is derived). aise seeks to 'destroy' the defensive walls of
cities (again Àu.:. in verse 11 of the poem we are discussing), and is intent on establishing a
kind of rule vver ail humans that is olten described as the rule of a master over his slaves
U1oVapXl1Oc,v 12; consider Solon's famous line 1he people through ignorance fall into slavery
to a monarch' [i:e:; lIE l'0vapxou ÔJl,loc:; O'ÔPCill ôouÀoouvIlv tncocv Solon 9W 3-4J. with
discussion and references in our Appendix III). The same power that Iiberates aise destroys
and enslaves. This characteristically Dionysiâc paradox is a consequence of the peculiar
way in which the Greeks understoOO freedom (i:Àcu9cplo). In the Greek context. love of
liberty is closely associated with desire to dominate others. On this. see Professor F. W.
Walbank's note on Polybius 5.106.5. Aise, Adkins 1972.68. Strauss 1948.20, Connor
1977.98 n.6. and. especially. Larsen 1962.230-235.
,=
90
Indeed. in the happy atmosphere of the symposium. and under the
influence of wine and its effects. ·the gifts of Dionysus' (A10VU01010i1 iSWPOlc;
9)73, eros is brought about and becomes conspicuously present ln the form of
'hopeful expectation sent by Aphrodite' (KunPliSoc;
T'
ÈÀ11lic; 8);4. which quickly
goes to work on the young symposiast's mental faculties (iSlaleUOO11 CflPcvac;
8)75. As in Sappho 16 LP. so here desire inspires a luminous vision of its
object. But in Bacchylides the vision that is brought forth is not a vision of a
beloved person's countenance (as in Sappho), but one of world conquest,
and of establishment of tyrannical rule over ail men;';. As expected, the
•
visible manifestations of such a tyranny are luminous. with the luminosity of
gold (prominently positioned at the very beginning of the closing stanza)
predominating (XPU{0Jw ... ~ap~[aipJouOiv OIKOI 13)n The gold here vividly
recalls the 'golden wing' of the first stanza in a striking example of ring
composition.
•
" AlhenaeU5 quoles Ihe poel Panyasis as saying tha: wine is the mosl excellent giM of gods
10 men' (oivo<; ôt: SV'lToïol St"'v nopa ~v aptoTov 2.37a). It does nol come as a surprise
Ihal Dionysus is the specifie divinily most oMen credited with offering this giM to humans. In
Euripides. Dionysus is 'Sromios, giver of wine (BpqJ.ov OiVOOoTO' 1Icr"ek.,. 682; on Sromios
as an epilhel of Dionysus. see Dodds' note on Euripides 1klee/wc 65-67). Elsewhere in
Euripides. Dionysus 'gave mortals Ihe vine Ihal extinguishes sorrows' (t'lv nOUOlÀunov
alJntÀov OOùVO' IlpaToïc; &ceh:JC 772). For more on wine as the giM of Dionysus, see 0110
1965.146.
" So we find here desire arising ouI of Ihe combined efforts of Dionysus and Aphrodile. This
is nol al ail surprising. In Anacreon, and in a poem where Dionysus is beseeched to advise
the beloved to accept the lover's eros. we find Eros, Aphrodite, and the nymphs that attend
Dionysus, ail playing together (Anacreon 357 PMG; see D. A. Campbell's notes on 1his
fragment in Campbell 1968.:;88-391). Further, in Euripides, Dionysus is invoked with a
prayer that he bring the maenads to Cyprus, where Aphrodite, Ihe Erotes, the Graces, and
Longing ail dwell (&cch;lc 402-415). On the close association betwee.1 Dionysus and
Aphrodite, see 0110 1965.176. On the sphere of influence in which Dionysus, Ap.~r'ldi!~, and
Eros operate in common, see Stock 1989.21-25.
75 Compare Archilochus' memorable image of 'Eros, rolling himself under my heart, ..
stealing out of my chest the soft lungs [ = seat of rational thaught]' (tpw<; une Kap6t'lV
i:Àuc8tiC; ... , KÀC""'C; i:K aTTJ8cwv anaÀac; eppevac; Archi!. 191W).
76 On the capability of desire to produce, in the lover's imagination, a luminous vision of the
beloved, see sedion eight of this chapter, along with Sumell 1983.290 note 35.
" Note that Plato defines lJawapuy'l as the effed prodUced by ÀalJnpav objeds (1ïm:JCu,
67e-68a, with discussion in our Appendix Il). Note also that in Bacchylides Epinici;ln 3,
lJawapuyai are produced by the ÀOIJnpOTTJc; of gold; ÀcilJna 6' Uno lJawapuyaic; 0 XPOOo<;
(verse 17; on this passage, see sedion ten of this chapter). Thus ÀOIJnpOTTJc; is, without
doubt, present in Bacchylides 20S SM.
91
While tM luminosity of tyranny in the final stanza derives mostly frorr.
the splendour of gold, it is nevertheless reinforced by other resplendent
images such as the 'gleaming ivory' (€ÀecpaV'ri TC lJaPJ.I[aip]OUOlv OLKOI 13), and
the 'dazzling sea' (aiYÀocVT)a nOVTOV 14). The fiai stanza closes with the
assurance that ail tMis wealth and power exist only in the imagination of the
symposiast (Wc; lnivoVTO<; OplJaiv&I KeQP 16).
How powerful is the €Ànic; that overcomes the symposiast in the eighth
verse? We obtain an impression of this if we consider the subject of the
verbs ÀUcI and OoKCl in lines 11 and 12 respectively. By the end of the fourth
•
stanza we leam that the conquest and the establishment of single rule that
occur in the third stanza are products of the drinking man's imagination. Thus
the implied subject of ÀUcI and OOKC; is probably 0
nivw·~.
So Campbell
translates lines 11 and 12 as 'immediately he is destroying the battlements of
cities, and he expects to be monarch over ail the world,78. But in performance
the implied subject of the verbs in lines 11 and 12 is not at ail immediately
evidenl. Indeed at the moment these lines are performed. the audience would
be justified in thinking that the most obvious candidate for subject nominative
of ÀÙCI and OOKCl is €ÀniC; in verse 8. In this case world conquest and single
rule over everyone, are both accomplished by the &ÀniC; itself. Accordingly
•
Professor G. Nagy translates verses 11 and 12 as 'straightaway it [the &Ànic;l
undoes the protective headbands of cities, and it thinks that it will be
monarch over ail mortals,79.
The difficulty in choosing between the two candidates for subject
nominative of ÀUcI and oOKcl is very suggestive as to the power of the &ÀniC;
for conquest, tyranny, and wealth that is brought about in the symposium
through the agency of Aphrodite and Dionysus. It is so powerfui that, white
under its influence, the drinking man becomes identified with il. The result is
that the symposiast completely loses his self in a clear, vivid, and focused
78
79
campbell 1992.2n. Italies are mine.
Nagy 1990.287. Italies are mine.
92
vision of conquest and tyranr,;cal splendour80 . It comes as no surprise after
this that Plato identifies intoxication, eros. and madness as essential features
of the tyrannical character:
TupaVVlK~
<St, ... , àvr,p àl(P1!>W<; YlyveTal, oTav ...
~e9ooT11(0c; TC I(ai èPWTll(O<: I(ai ~eÀaYXOÀll(~ yevr,Tal (Rt'pubJ ic 5ï3c)81.
The symposiastic encomium is a genre of poetry
auyyevr,~
to the
epinician ode. It is therefore worthwhile to mention that. in their victory odes.
both Pindar and Bacchylides (as weil as the tradition of moral proverbs and
didactic poetry from which the epinician poets draw gnomic material and
moral admonitions) are consistent in warning against such excessively high
•
•
hopes. on the grounds that they are both unrealisitic and immoral~ .
oc The concreteness 01 Bacchyhdes' visual imagery in verses 11-16 reinlorees the point that
with the help 01 Dionysus. Aphrodite's i:Àm~ has established complete control over the
symposiasl's mental laculties. Thus Bacchylides presents us with a very imaginative
expression ,)1 the lonmidable power that desire exerts on the desiring subject. Elsewhere. this
power would be expressed in more exphcit tenms. 'Eros arbitrarily rules even over the gods
as weil as over mysell 01 course' (OÙToc; rEpwc:;! yap àPXCI Kal Bccilv onwc; BCÀc, KàlJoù yc
[Sophocles Trarilinia.: 443-444]). 'Arbitrary rule' is strongly reminiscent 01 tyranny:
accordingly elsewhere Eros is addressed as 1yranl' (rupavvc ... 'Epwc:; Eunpides Ir. 136
TGF: cf. IfipJ>.'/. 538: 'Epwm IIc TOV rupavvav àvllpci>v). With passages such as these in
mind. Plato states that 'Eros has long been called a tyran!' ("aÀa, rupavvoc; 0 'Epwc:; Àcyna,
Repuh/ic 573c). Finally, Dionysus. too. has been called 1yrant 01 the mmd' (rupavvc TQ~ .
q>pcvoc; Sophocles /'r"cI,inia.: 217: see Easterling's note on this hne). Such 15 Ihe power that
Aphrodite and Dionysus exert on the symposiast in Bacch. 20B SM. Thus. paradoxically. in
the Dionysiac context of the symposium, the aspiring tyrant (the one who would tyranmcally
subject others) is himsell tyrannically subjected to his own aspIration (CÀm~) and 10 hls own
intoxication. This is a clear example 01 the 'multiple inversions and contradictiOl,s 01
Dionysus' to which Prolessor C. Segal draws allel"'ion in his comprehensive study 01
Euripides' R"·cI,,,.: (Segal 1982.266). Paradox has been the main area 01 locus of
contemporary scholarship on Dionysus. For a useful survey. see Heinnchs 1984.205-240.
Heinrichs concludes that pemaps the most yielding approach to Dionysus is that 01 W. 0110
'who summed up Dionysus as a god of paradox' (234: see also Goldhill 1990.126-129). 0110
presents his summary view 01 Dionysus and 01 Greek views on wine in 0110 1965.150-151.
rartly quoted below in this section.
, On the connection between drunkcnness and tyranny in Plato, see also 1.'''''' 649b. 671 b.
and Phacdru.' 238b
8Z More than Iwo eenturies before Bacchylides, Semonides of Amogos had declared that
'hope and conviction nurture ail humans, as they launch themselves alter the impossible'
(i:Ànic; IIi: ntivTa~ Ktimnc.9ci'l Tpi:cp&l 1 cinp'l"TOv OWO'VOVTO~ Semonides 1W 6-7: lor a
detailed commentary on this poem, see Gerber 1984.125-135: and for a thoughttul
interpretalion of the same poem, see Carson 1984.59-71). Note that in Bacchylides 20B SM
as weil we find i:Àni~ and owoivw in close conjunction. The slighlly ironie tone of OOocCI and
OWOIVCI in Iines 12 and 16 respeetively of Bacchylides' poem (bath of whiCh verbes make
c1ear that the acquisition of power and wealth envisioned is imaginary and iIIusory) suggests
to me that Bacchylides here adopts an appraisal of i:Àni~ similar to that of Semonides. To
tum now to epinician poetry , W. J, Verdenius has argued that 'Pindar has a low estimation
of i:Ànie:: it is KCvc6c; (,\'.8.45), èucpavToc; (P.3.23), avalll.,., (.\'.11.45), ~vcp6c; (/.8.45). and
93
It IS also Important to mention that the ecstatic vision of tyrannical
conquest, destruction. and splendour that fully preoccupies the symposiast's
mind is not only brought about through the agency of Aphrodite's i:À"iC;, but
also through the effeets of wine, the gift of Dionysus. In his landmark study of
Dionysus, Walter Otto sums up Greek views on wine with the following
eloquent wordsS3 :
•
•
ln the same drink which has within :t the power to free, to comfort,
and to bring bliss, there slumbers the: god of horror ... Frequently,
the growing intensily of the effeets of wine is described in
successive sleps: from well-being, love, desire, and sleep, to
wantonness, cries, deeds of violence, and finally madness . . .
Thus of ail that earth produces, the vine mirrors best the god's
[Dionysus'] Iwo faces and reveals most clearly his miraculous
nature-both his endearing and his lerrible wildness. Il was
doubtless always recognized as such, ever since one knew of him
and of wine. We, on the other hand. are accuslomed 10 use the
gifts of nature to suit ourselves wilhout being amazed by its
secrets, and whenever there is lalk of wine, we think of geniality.
high spirits, and, perhaps, also of the dangers to heallh and
morals. But lhe Greek of antiquity was caught up by the total
seriousness of lhe lruth lhat here pleasure and pain,
enlightenment and destruction, the lovable and lhe horrible lived in
close intimacy. It is this unity of the paradoxical which appeared in
Dionysiac ecstacy wilh staggering force.
Il is wilh lhis understanding of wine and ils effects, and with the above
mentioned attitude of epinician ethics towards extravagant i:Àrnc; in mind, that
we may better understand the significance of the ring composition that we
noled in this poem. We may represent the ring composition with the following
figure:
usually strives after the impossible, although semetimes it may ad as a useful stimulus
(0.13.104: 1'.3.11; 1.8.15)' (Verdenius 1987.95). For more on û.mc; in epinician poetry and
elsewhere. see Bulman 1992.22 with Bulman's note 24 p. 84 and references. See aise
Gerber's note on Semonides 1W 6, in Gerber 1984.128. For a striking appearance of i:Àmc;
as unrealistic 'wishful thinking' in Bacchylides, consider Epinichm 3: 'winged hope undoes
the mind of mortals' (IlTEpo€ooa ~ i:Ànic; ÛROÀÙE' vOllla 1 èc;>aIlEpiOlv 75-76). A similar
sentiment is expressed in fragment 20B SM.
830001965.150-151.
94
opuaivw (3)
1
xpoocov ... mcpov (4)
2
xpoow (13)
op~alvcl (16)
2
1
The corresponde~ces are quite suggestive. Bacchylides' eagerness to sing
(epuaivw 3) comes to meet the wild imagination of the symposlast (owalVcl
16). And Bacchylides' concrete 'golden song' (Xpuacov ... mcpov 4) is
offered in the place of the intangible, illusory goId that the symposlast
envisions.
Bacchylides' encomium recognizes the existence of irratlonally high
hopes of conquest. tyranny, and acquisition of immense wealth, and the
•
poetic genre he serves (epinician poetry) is highly sensitive to the destruclive
effects that such wild, intoxicated ambitions may cause in an organized
society, if they are acted out. But our poet also appreciates the need for
these powerful desires to be released. Bacchylides therefore does not keep
silent about them, but briJ"gs them to the fore, celebrates them in his poem,
and encourages their release in the context of the symposium. At the same
time, however, the institution of the symposium, and the poetry that serves It
(in this case Bacchylides fr. 20B SM) appear to be interested in restncting
such characteristically Dionysiac ambitious thoughts
8ol
,
temporally, to the
occasion of the symposium 'at the final days of the month' (cv
•
ciKa~cocnv
5)
Bacchylides' poem further points to the illusory, unrealistic nature of
S
excessive hopes for great power and immense amounts of golcf
,
and offers
On Dionysus as a conqueror, see Ollo 1965.77, 197-198.
It is worth mentioning, however, that there was one person in history who actually
managed to tum unrealistic CÀme: for world conquest into reality: Alexander the GreaI (a
descendant of the Alexander of our poem'), who certainly conquered several great cilies,
amassed 'great wealth from Egypl', and established himself as world monarCh. This
coincidence is duly noted in FrllnkeI1975.468. It fascinates me that Alexander was notorious
for his olten destructive fondness for wine (on Alexander's bibulousness, and its less than
happy consequences, see Fox 1973.309-314; aise Hamilton 1974.103-104). But Alexander's
special relationship with Dionysus extended weil beyond the former's givenness to drink. As
the greal conqueror's biographers olten emphasize, Alexander, in his conques! of the East,
saw himself as following in the footsteps of Dionysus, whose religion had extended weil into
the Far East, Alexander indeed regarded himself as a rival of Dionysus in conques!. On this
very interesting topic, see Fox 1973,399-400; aise Hamillon 1974110-111, 130.
84
85
95
ln their place a tangible 'delighttu1 prize' (àya\lJa 5), a true piece of solie:!
'gold' (XpUacov 4), the symposiastic song itselfS.
As we conclude our discussion of this section, we note that the above
interpretation appears to be in harmony with the fragmentary Iines that follow
verse 16. Th,"!re Bacchylides draws Alexander's attention to the fact that 'no
human has ever attained complete prosperity' (oÀl3ov ô faxc mivTa 1 0ÙTlC;
av9pWnwv 23-24), and rhe'orically asks 'what greater profit is there for
humans than to delight one's heart with beautiful things?' (Ti yap av9pWnOlCl't
IJcR;ov 1 KCPÔoc; f) 8uJ.aw
•
Xapi~Ca9al
KaÀa: 19-20). If we read these lines i, the
context of those that preceded them. we may say that by realistically pointing
out the finitude of human material prosperity. Bacchylides perhaps aims to
direct Alexander's attention away from his hopeful daydreams of extravagant
wealth, and to focus his attention to enjoyment of the KaÀov thing that is
acually present This would be none other than Bacchylides' beautiful song
which is presented as a real, iangible, concrete piece of goldS;
--_.
•
_._-----
,,; Our Interpretation appears to be in agreement with recent scholarship on Dionysus, ln his
comprehensive study of Euripides' lklcchac. Professor C. Segal emphasizes that whether
Dionysus appears as god of wine, or of Bacchic ecstacy, or of tragi: performance, he always
operates as the principle that unifies ditterences. and blurs boundaries between divinity and
bestiality, humanity and divinity, creativity and destruction. savagery and civilization, peace
and frenzy (see Segal 1982.10-19), A recently published collection of essays concentrates
on the fact that tragedy was perfomed at the City Dionysia (the major Athenian festival in
honour of DionysuS). and explores the connections between tragedy and the god in whose
honour tragedy was performed (Winkler and Zeitlin 1990; see particularly Goldhill's
comments on the deep connection between the subject-malter of tragedy and aspects of
Dionysus, in Goldhill 1990,126-129). Based on the observations of the contributors in the
above mentioned collection and on his own work on Dionysus, Sl!f:al Ms recently suggested
that in tragedy 1he spell of the Dionysiac mask releases in controlled doses, the fears,
anxiety, irrationality that lie beneath the brilliant surface of Periclean Athens' (Segal
1995.202), ln the same spirit. 1 would suggest that part of the intention (.:>walvw 3) of our
Bacchylidean fragment is to encourage release. in controlled doses and in the context of the
symp<'sium. of the irrationality of extravagant aspirations for glory, and of the fears and
a.nxiety that such aspirations expeetedly cause in an organized society.
8, Il is also possible of ourse that by KaÀc1. in verse 20. Bacchylides means 'fair deeds·. This
Interpretation would be supported by a striking parallel in Bacchylides' third epinician ode:
'delight your heart by performing righteous deeds; for this is the greatest of ail profits' (Oata
llpcilv CùcppalVC lluIJov' TOÙTO yap .' KCP&;WV untpTaTov 83-84). Such moral advice is
conventional in epinician poetry. and serves to show tMt the laudandus is not interested in
mere accumulation of wealth and profits. but in noble use o~ wealth for Oata and KaÀa deeds.
such as provid.ng for the victory celebration and for the necessary rites. and financing the
poetry that immortalizes praiseworthy achievement (on this theme. see Bundy 1986
[1962].85-91. Woodbury 1968,537-542. and Carson 1984,111, along with our discussion of
96
If the above argument carries any force. then our discussion
ln
thls
section has shown the usefulness. in interpreting 8acchylides' fragment 208
SM. of our work in the previous section and of our hypothesis that 'as the
radiance of beautv is to the lover. so the splendour of tyranny is to the
tyrannical "Iover'''. In the following section we will retum to the seventh
century, and to Semonides of Amorgos. in an attempt to show how our
hypothesis may t>elp us offer an interpretation of the passage in which we
have the earliest appearance of the word TUpaVVCX:.
•
2.12 BEAUTY AND THE TYRANT: SEMONIDES 7W 57-70.
n,v O· Inncx: é$PTt xam~co' &y&ivaTo,
fi è50ûÀ" &pya Kat oUnv nCPlTpi:ncl,
KM' àv lJuÀ11e; IjJaUaC1CV MC KOOKlVOV
àp&tcv MC I(onpov &~. oiKou I3<iÀOl,
MC npOc; invov oal30À11v o.ÀcUlJCV11
I~OlT" OVàYKI1 0' àvopa nOltiTQI <piÀov.
ÀOÙ"COl oc nOOT1e; illJ&P11e; àno plmOV
oie;, àÀÀOTC Tpte; KatlJUpOlO' oÀcicpcTal'
aict oÈ: Xa1T11v &KTCVlOlJ&V11V cpopci
l3aecîav 0 Ve&IJOIalv &OKlaOlJÈ:v11v.
KaÀov lJÈ:v WV BÈ11lJa TOlaUT11 yuv11
àÀÀOlal, TW O· &j(OVTl yiyvcTal KaKov,
flv 1J11 Tle; il TupaVVOe; fi OK11moùX Oe;
OaTle; TOlOUTOIe; eUllov oyÀaiZ;CTal. (Semonides 7W 57-70)
n.
•
This one was the offspring of a dainty mare with a long mane.
She avoids servile chores and trouble:
she would never lay her hand on the mill, nor Dick up
the sieve, nor throw the dung out of the house,
nor sit near the Oyen because she keeps away from
soot. Yet, of necessity she makes a man her own.
she washes the dirt off herself twice, sometimes
Bacchylides /..;·pinici3n 3 in section ten of this chapter}. In the contexl of fr. 20B. ô
symposiastic encomium, such 'fair deeds' would refer primarily ta provision for the
symposium. and ta financing of the encomium itself. Il is such deeds that are true profit for
Alexander, and such deeds will del;ght his heart. The ward Bacchylides uses for dehght is
XapI~ta9aI, a derivative of XaplC;. ThiS emr-~Iasizes that Alexander's fair deed of financing the
song and ilS performance implies its reci,Jrocal complement. Bacchylidcs' gift of the song for
Alexander's enjoymel1l.Thus Alexander's dehght consists bath in financing the poem and in
enjoying il. Therefore even in this interpr~i<ltion, in the final fragmentary Iines of the
encomium the poet is directing Alexander's attention away from thought of acquisition of
ex1ravagant power and prosperity. and leading it to",~rd enjoyment of the poem.
97
three times every day, and annoints herself with myrr!1;
moreover she always wears her long. thick hair
weil combed and decked with f1owers.
Such a wom:an is a lovely sight for others
but to him who has her she becomes an evil.
unless he be a tyrant or else a sceptered king,
someone who glories in such things.
The passage quoted above represents the earliest extant locus of the word
'tyrant' in Greek Iiterature. So while in Archilochus we encounter the word
'tyranny' twice, we find the earliest extant application of TUpaVVCX; in the work
•
of Semonides of Amorgos, quite probably a contemporary of Archilochus and
certainly a fellow iambic poetes Semonides' lengthy poem (from which we
have taken the above quoted passage) is also the earliest extant Greek
poem that is entirely devoted to women89 .
The poet identifies and portrays ten different female types. Seven of
these owe their origin and charaeteristic qualities to different animais; two are
said to originate from the earth and the sea respeetively; finally the last one
is compared to a bee. The type of woman that is described in our quoted
Iines is compared to a mare. With the exception of the bee woman who is
praised in the highest terms, ail other female types are denigrated with
evident animosity.
•
The purpose of the poem, as Professor Hugh L1o~,d-Jones suggests,
was probably merely to entertain the poet's audience. an audience
comprising peasants and common men generally90. One of its ostensible
aims. quite possibly. was to serve as a humourous guide to marriage for
middle class people. One of our own aims in discussing this apparently
unlikely source for tyranny, is to show that the, passage quoted above is quite
profoundly relevant to tyranny, and in a way that follows naturally from our
88 On the date ot Semonides. see L1oyd-Jones 1975.15-16.
.. This poem benefits trom an exemplary commentary. Lloyd-Jones 1975. devoted entirely
to itself. Shorter but useful and readily available commentaries are included in the
collections by D. A. Campbell and D. E. Gerber. see Campbell 1967.187-191. and Gerber
1970.57-65.
90 L1oyd-Jones 1975.24.
98
discussion. in the previous three sections. of the linked concepts of tyranny.
eros.
vision. and luminosity.
Gener.:'lIy speaking. this poem may have amus<::d Semonides' original
audienr.e. but to most readers today it would probably appear. on the whole.
rather tasteless, or perhaps even offensive. But it remains an important
source for modem scholars since it is the earliest extant Greek document
devoted entirely to women. It thus holds peculiar interest for contemporary
scholars aiming to reconstruct the history of attitudes towards women
•
91
.
The
poem is also important in character study. and may be seen as a percursor of
Theophrastus' work on the variety of human chara:ters92
As we said earlier, ail female types dis';ussed are more or less
denigrated with the exception of the bee wvman who wins Semonides'
highest praise. Her portrayal is prominenti 1' placed in the poem just dfter the
description of ail other types. In view of this, and taking into account that thls
poem represents a sustained effort to denigrate women with merclless satire.
great significance should be attached to the bee woman whom the poet
praises with evident admiration. The mare woman whom we will be
discussing here, will have to be set against the ideal bee woman so that we
may better understand her portrayal. The bee woman is described as follows
•
tilv 5' eK ~&hiaOTlC;' Lilv TIC; &ÛTUX&Î hal3c.ilV·
K&ivn yàp oin ~W\.loc; oU npoml;àv&l,
eàhh&l 5' un' aUTi'lC; Kànae~&TQl l3ioc;.
cpih11 5& C7ÙIl Cjllh&ÙVTl Y11pàC7K&1 n6at
T&KoUaa Kahov KoUv~àKhUTOV yevoc;.
KQpl11p&!Ù1C; ~&V ev YUVQl~l yiYV&Tal
nàanm, 8&i11 5' ~CjlliSe5P01l&v xàptC;.
000' ev yuval~iv ii5&Tal Ka811~ev11,
ëKou heyoumv àcppcXîlaiOUC; hOyouc;.
Toiac; yuvaiKac; àviSpàmv xapil;&Tal
Z&Uc; TàC; QpiCTTac; Kal nohucppaiS&CTTàTac;. (Semonides 7W 83-93)
This last one originated from a bee. One is lucky
to receive such a wife, for no blame approaches her.
9'
92
Uoyd.Jones 1975.9.
Uoyd.Jones 1975.29 and fol:owing.
99
Life blooms and f10urishes because of her.
She loves her husband and grows old with him who loves her,
and gives birth to comely and famous offspring.
She becomes distinguished among ail women,
and divir.e grace surrounds her.
Nor does she delight in sitting among women
when they talk about sex.
Such are the best and wisest women
that Zeus bestows on men.
Yet even this this most excellent lady's praiseworthy qualities do not suffice
to redeem women in the generally hostile invective of Semonides' iambic
•
poetry. The bee woman is merely the exception that proves the rule, since
what follows is a devastating argument against ail women, who are said to be
the greatest of ail evils that Zeus bestowed on men (94 f.). This is the
argument that closes the poem. Its punchline is given in a particularly vicious
attack en Helen:
lcue; yàp l.lèYlaTOV TOÙT' Ê:noll,C7cv KaKOv
Ka! OCC7IJov aCPC6TlKCV àPPTlKTOV nèoTle;
Ê:E;' OÙ TC TOUe; I.lCV 'AIOTle; Ê:oèE;aTo
yuvalKOc; CiVCK' ciI.lCPIOTlPIWI.lCVOUe;. (Semonides 7W 185-188)
•
For tiliS is the greatest of ail evils that Zeus created
and shackled us with l!nbreakable bonds
ever since the lime when Hades received the men
who went to war for the sake of a woman.
Now Semonides nowhere mentions Helen's name. If, as Lloyd-Jones
suggests, the poem does not end here, then perhaps Helen's name would be
mentioned in the lost subsequent lines. But it may be the case that the poem
ends in with verse 188. If this is true, then perhaps the poet reveals his
antipathy for Helen by not even mentioning her name93 . At any rate we may
Compare Alcaeus 70 LP, a poem occasioned by Pitlacus' marriage to a Penthelid woman,
ln line 6, Alcaeus reveals his bitlemess towards Pitlacus by not mentioning his name, but
reducing him to a demonstrative pronoun (Ki')Voc; 6), ln fragment 72 LP, Alcaeus follows the
same technique to express his contempt al another enemy, a drunkard, usually identified as
Pitlacus' father (Ki')Voc; aE: KTA. 7; on the identily of lhat man', see Page 1955,171 and
following), Finally, sappho blasts an adversary by telling her that lhere will never be any
recolleclion of you nor longing for you ... in the future' (<":00& nota l'vClllOOÙVQ cn:9&v 1 taoE't'
.3
100
be certain that Helen is the person whom Semonides
IS
bitterly attacklng
here, if we consider the followlng passagE: from Homer:
n
lJo.Àa cil vovov A"rpee<; eùpuona z,::üc;
i:Kno.Àvwc; iixeTlpe vuvaLKelac; CIO. ~ouÀo.c;
i:~ lipxiic;' 'EÀEVTlC; !JEV anwÀo!Jee' eiveKa nOÀÀOl ... (Od\"s..<t"· 11.
'0 nonol,
436-437)
Certainly wide seeing Zeus displayed astonishing
hatred against the offspring of Atreus because of counsels of women
trom the start: many of us were outdone because of Helen .
•
Comparison of the reference to Helen with the portrayal cf the bee woman
brings out something striking about the latter. The bee woman is r1entioned
as the ideal wife, but nowhere in his portrayal of her does Semonides
comment upon her physical appearance This contrasts quite stnkingly with
the mention of Helen whose beauty and charm tradition would not deny.
Perhaps this contrast serves to show that beauty and charm in themselves
do not make for an excellent wife unless they are accompanied by other,
much more essential qualities. In fact, in the case of Helen, beauty Itself
preves ruinous. Accordingly. the mare woman, whom we Will shortly be
discussing, represents the female type that most resembles Helen beautlful
•
and charming, but also disastrous.
To convince ourseIves that the mare woman is the one that most
resembles Helen, we need only consider that she is the only type, among
these said to originate from animais, whom the poet describes as beauliful
and whose erotic appeal, as we shall see, he emphasizes. Ali ether types are
represented not only as evil, but also as ugly. In view of this, It would not be
unreasonable to say that the mare type is the one that most vivldly recalls
Helen. As we shall see, the resemblance is not confined te extemal
nolla &iC; ÜOT&poV 55 LP 1-2). Accordingly, sappho denies this enemy ~À&oc; by not
mentioning her name at ail. For a stimulating discussion on the connestion between 'name'
(6vO!'Q) and 'fame' (KÀ&oc;) in the context of Greek lyric poetry, see Goldhi1l1991.10a and
following. It is unfortunate that Professor GoldhiU's study does not include a discussion of
Sappho 55 LP.
000&
101
appearance, but also in character, in the capacity for ruin. The mare woman's
very attractiveness makes her ail the more dangerous, since it blinds
prospective suitors to her considerable st'>Qrtcomings.
Thus if Semonides wants to show that such a beautiful lady is not
suitable as a wife, he will be compelled to employ ail of his skill; and the
argument is bound to be interesting. This passage then on the mare woman
gives us an opportunity to observe and evaluate Semonides' poetic skiIls
which have long been doubted 94 .
One thing may be said with certainty; that Semonides' poem on women
•
9S
is certainly superior to the shorter one by Phokylides on the same topic
.
Moreover there does exist testimony that the particular passage we are
disussing is gaining recognition as to its literary value. In a recent modern
Greek commentary on ancient Greek iambic poetry, the Greek philologist
Yiannis Dallas offers, as an illustration of recent interest in Semonides'
poem,
several creative translations by contemporary Greek poets of this
particular passage en the mare woman, and not of any other part of the
poem 96 . 1personally think that it is a wonderful passage, and 1hope that my
reading brings out its literary merit.
A quick glance at the structure of the passage reveals that we are
•
dealing with a weil balanced argument. The first line is self-contained and
serves to introduce the mare woman. Two longer sections, of almost equal
length (four verses each) follow; the first describing her character, the other
94 The little thal has come down 10 us of Semonides' work does not conclusively show
whether we are dealing with a skillful or mediocre poet. The usual judgemenl is
unfavourallie. In his influential study of early Greek poetry, Professor Hermann Frankel
complains Ihal 1he Iilerary merit of Semonides' pedestrian satire on women is slighl.' See
Frankel 1975.205. Even Professor L1oyd-Jones, who stales thal Semonides 7W 'seems 10
me one of Ihe most attractive as il is one of Ihe largest remains of Greek archaic poelry Ihal
have come down 10 us' (Lloyd-Jones 1975.9), will easily admillhal 'il is lrue Ihal Archilochus
is a greal poet and Semonides is nol.' (L1oyd-Jones 1975.24). Professor Anne Carson
humorously commenls on Ihe amllivalence with which modem scholarship approaches
Semonides' poelry lly giving her study of Ihe olher sullstanlial fragment of Semonides Ihal
has come down 10 us Ihe tille "How Bad a Poem is Semonides Fragmenl 1?".
'" Phokylides 2W. Cf. CamplleIl1967.187.
". Dallas 1993.211-214.
102
her appearance (58-62, and 63-66). Sandwlched between the two
IS
a self-
contained one-line section (62), which due to its short length and promlnent
placing demands special attention. The four remalning verses offer a
conclusive evaluation of the lady's suitabihty (or lack thereof) as a wlfe.
Let us now take a closer look at the passage It would do to recall that
we are dealing with oral poetry; 1 mean that Semonldes was recltlng to an
audience. Judging by the opening hne of our passage, we may confidently
guess that the audience would expect praise for the mare woman to follow
•
Only a few lines earlier they had heard the previous type belng Inroduced
with the devastating words '(Zeus) made this nex! one out of a weasel, a
wretched, miserable creature' (T11V (5 &K yaÀllC;, (5ucrrllvov, oii;upov ycvoc; 50)
One would not expect anything but reproaches after tha! But with the mare
woman things are quite differen! After ail, she
IS
sald to have onginated from
an animal that is both de facto beautiful. and was hlghly valued in Greek
culture.
Greek civilization indeed attached immense value to horses and to
horse breeding
97
The latter was the prerogative of the upper classes, which,
in Athens and after Solon, became collectively known as 'knlghts' (innclC;).
Horses gave the opportunity to kings, tyrants, and wealthy Cillzens to dlsplay
•
their wealth at the Panhellenlc games. We recall that Hleron partlally owed
his chariot victory at Olympia to his 'swift mares' (9oaC; ... innouc; Bacchyhdes
Epin. 3.3-4). The notorious Alcibiades himself took horse breeding to such a
high level that he could enter the chariot race at Olympia wlth seven (7')
teams of horses; eventually he won first, third, and fourth place (Thuc. 6.16
1-3), Finally, even Alcibiades' political opponent Nicias recognizes that
through
horsebreeding
Alcibiades becomes an object of admiration
(9aUIJaa6fl âne TaC; innoTpoqliac; Thuc. 6.12.2), and brings splendour to
97 On the immense importance of the horse in Greek culture. see Uoyd-Jones 1975.78-79.
and references cited therein.
103
himself (ioia &ÀÀQIlnpW&a9at Thuc. 6.12.2)98. Retuming now to Semonides,
and to our passage, we certainly would anticipate that the lady who
originated from such an animal would win the poet's highest praise.
Moreover, the epithet xarr&&oa (an adjective that applies both to mares
and to women) prominently positioned after the caesura, draws attention to
the mane, an eye-catching feature of horses, and anticipates the lovely
description of the beautiful woman's hair (65-66).
However, the audience is temporarily disappointed in its high
•
expectations as a storm of reproaches comes pouring down in the nex! few
lines. Apparently Semonides intends that the members of his audience upon
listening to these Iines may experience the same emotions that they would
experience upon marrying a waman of the mare type; high expectations at
first, bitter disappointment soon afterwards. Verse 57 is lovely, but it is
followed by four lines that are both ugly and nasty. Similarly, the poet will
proceed to say that the mare waman is 'a lovely sight'
soon proves 'a disaster'
(KaKÔV
(KaÀOV
8&1'II.1a 67) but
68). Beautiful things conceal dangers; so
Semonides seems to reason.
There is one ward in the opening line that eloquently describes the
beauty of beautiful things, and, at the same time, hints at the dangers of
beauty: the epithet
~pi't.
This ward, prominently positioned just before the
caesura is, 1think, the key to the whole passage and deserves attention.
The adjective ~, (possibly derived tram TiIll'l: youth)99 interestingly
appears nowhere in Homer, but is quite traquent in later literature, especially
in lyric. LSJ Iist the following possible translations: 'delicate', 'graceful',
'beauteous', 'prettY', 'dainty', and, when applied to things, 'splendid' and
'Iuxurious'. In other contexts, the ward acquired the more negative meaning
of 'overdelicate', 'extravagantly fond of luxury'. In this sense it applied to
96 On horse breeding as a means of bringing splendour to wealthy men in ancien! Greece,
with particular reference to Alcibiades, see Kurlle 1991.171-173.
99 see Verdenius 1962.392.
104
people who had become exceedingly delicate or spoiled as a result of an
extravagantly luxurious lifestyle '00.
Imaginative use of af3pO<;, and of the noun af3poaùv'1, (af3poaùva in the
aeolic dialect) from a favourable viewpoint abounds in early lyric, especially
in Sappho's poetry, where the word acquires sensual,
even erotic
connotations. Sappho applies it to Adonis (140 LP 1) and to the Graces (128
LP); and in one surviving fragment she identifies ci[3poaùva as a value that
her poetry resolutely upholds '1 myself love delicacy' (cyw <5i: cpiÀ'1IJIJ'
•
ci[3poaUvav 58 LP 26).
Other authors however took an unfavourable view of Of3poaùv'1 and
indeed associated it with civil discord and tyranny. Let us consider the
following passage in which Xenophanes criticizes his fellow Kolophonians:
Of3poaùvce; <5i: lJae6vn:e; àVW<p&Àcae; napèl lIU()wv,
ë<ppa Tupavvl'1e; ilcav aveu CTUYepi'le;,
flecav &ie; àyopT]v navaÀoupyca cpàp&' &XOVT&e;,
où lJ&iou<; &anep XIÀlOl &le; cllinav,
aùXaÀcOl, Xail'!lcnv àYaÀÀ~&VOl eÙT1p&nc&cnv,
àaK'1TOle; OOIJT]V XpÎjJacnv i5&~&VOl. (Xenophanes 3W)
•
Having leamed useless luxuries from the Lydians,
at the time when they were free from hated tyranny,
they would rush to the market place wearing ail purple cloaks,
not less than a thousand of them in total,
boastful, d~lighting in their comely hairstyles,
drenching themselves in the scents of elaborately made unguents.
Notice first of ail the parallels between the above passage and Semonides'
remarks on the mare woman: tyranny, luxury, impressive hairstyles and
scents, are ail present in both. Xenophanes tells us that the Kolophonians
adopted the useless ways of luxury from the Lydians, a people famous for
their wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Useless luxury manifests itself in purple
mantles, impressive hairstyles, and elaborate unguents. Further, the first two
'00 For more on tne meaning of àjlpôc;, see Uoyd.Jones' note on the Une we are discussing
together wilh Verdenius 1982.
105
verses imply that that é1l3poaliVTJ somehow had a hand in the subjugation of
Kolophon to 'hated tyranny'(2).
Xenophanes does not exactly clarify the movement from é1l3poalivTJ to
tyranny. Perhaps we may better understand how the former brought about
the latter if we examine an argument that reveals é1l3poaùvTJ, in its bad sense,
as an aspect of hubris'o,. After ail, in Greek thought hubris ever leads to
tyranny and destruction. Indeed Theognis attributes the destruction of the
Kolophonians to their own hubris:
•
üj3plc; Kai MéyvTJTac; amilÀccrc Kai KOÀoq>wva
Kai IIlUPVTJV' névTWC; Kupvc Kai ÙlJIl' anoÀcl (Theognis 1103-1104)
Excess destroyed Magnesia and Kolophon
and Smyma; Surely Kyrnos, it will destroy you as weil.
Of what did the hubris of the Kolophonians consist? The historian
Theopompus explains that it was their extravagantly luxurious Iifestyle that
resulted in civil discord and, eventually tyranny (115 F7 FHG quoted in
Athenaeus
526c),
Apparently
then
the
excessive
luxuries
of
the
Kolophonians were thought to have brought about dissension in the city
since each man aimed to outdo his neighbours with magnificent display of
•
wealth through expensive clothing, perfumes, hairstyles, etc, This excessive
display of luxury was the hubristic behaviour that effected the weakening of
the city's defences until it became subjected to tyranny.
What matters for our discussion is that it seems that the destruction
which ensues in the polis through citizens excessively given to luxury, may
also occur in the oikos through a wife exceedingly fond of luxuries. Indeed,
the four lines that follow the opening verse of the passage on the mare
woman amount to a pitilessly satirical account of the ruin that an élj3pJi wife
may effect in a modest household. Here is one wife who will never occupy
herself with the more unpleasant chores around the house (58-62). The
'0' On the connection between àJlpcloUvrJ and hubris see further Knox 1984; alsa Nagy 1990.
264 and following.
106
negative aspects of cil3pocnJvTl in these fines contrast strikingfy with some of
the more attractive qualities of the i:lI3PTl woman, in the next longer section of
the passage (63-66) where the fady's appeaf is discussed.
We may better understand the contrast between the above mentioned
sections, if we consider the short segment in line 62 which brings transition
from the first longer section to the second one. As we have already
mentioned, the short length of this sentence as weil as its prominent
positioning demand that we pay carefuf attention to il. Unfortunately It is a
•
very difficult fine to translate
Lloyd-Jones and Campbell both accept
Lattimore's translation: 'She makes her husband intimate with Hard Times',
taking i:lVciYKTl as a personified concept. The probfem with this translation is
that there seems to be no parallel passage in which civaYKTl takes the narrow
meaning of financial hard times. Professor Lloyd-Jones cites a passage in
which a personified Ananke is the sister of a personified Amechania. This
does not help much, since both of the above mentioned personified concepts
are too broad to be confined to 'financial dire straits'. Accordingly Professor
Gerber argues that 'hard times' is not a natural meaning of civciYKTl, and
prefers to take cp[Àov in the possessive sense. This would give 'however, of
necessity she will make a man her own"02, The sense is that this woman's
•
erotic appeal makes her irresistible to men in spite of her considerable
shortcomi:1gs; she subdues them under the compulsion of eros.
Read this way, line 62 serves to bring smooth transition between the
first and second longer sections of the passage: the first establishes that the
C13Pi) woman will not perform the necessary housework, ln line 62 we learn
that her shortcomings do not diminish the fady's appeal. And the following
section describes exactly why she is so difficult to resist with images weil
known from love poetry.
Certainly the images of the f10wers that crown the lady's hair, and of the
myrrh, vividly establish the presence of ercs in these lines, ln her study of
102
Gerber 1970, ad /OC.
107
Sappho 94 LP, Professor A. P. Burnett elucidates the importance of f10wer
crowns and of scents in the Greek experience of desire. 1will reproduce here
part of her argument as it stands '03:
•
Crowning oneself with flowers . . . marked a girl as ready for love.
Such wreaths were worn to seek favor from the Charites.
dispensers of attractiveness (Sapph. 81.6-7 V). and they were
themselves redolent of desire (CpciTOl, Sappho 81.4 V) ... A flower
crown was reminiscent of Aphrodite's own (of roses at Eur. Med.
840) and this is why the Horae put a wreath of spring blossoms in
Pandora's hair when she was sent out on her mission of seduction
(Hes. Erga 73-75) ... Scented unguents and salves were the main
ingredients in any recipe for provocation, which is why Hera
begged perfumes from Aphrodite . . . when she meant to numb
Zeus' wits with sex (Il. 14. 171-72), and why Aphrodite herself
applied scent before she journeyed to Anchises' hut (H.vmn. Hom.
Ven. 61-62).
Moreover, the most appropriate parallel, in love poetry, to Semonides'
impressive description of the long hair that casts a heavy shadow, can be
found in the poetry of his contemporary Archilochus:
. . . 'ÏJ l5i: ci KOIlT'l
CÏJl.!ouc; KaT&aKia~& Kai ~&Tciq>p&va (Archil. 31 W)
•
. . . And her hair
cast a heavy shadow over her shoulders and the broad of her back.
Semonides' description of the delicate lady's attractive features involves the
sense of sight as weil as the senses of smell and of hearing. The shadowy
hair is certainly a visual image, but the f10wers and the scents evoke the
sense of srrell. Further, the heavy repetition of rand J sounds (64-66) brings
to mind the sound of the f10wing water. Nevertheless, ail erotic images
present here have a visual component as weil, even the myrrh, which,
'03 Bumett 1979.23-24. On scents associated with Aphrodite, see also Detienne 1977.91. On
the particular importance of myntl in desire, see Detienne 1977.94. The significance of
myntl in myths referring to Adonis is emphasized throughout Professor Detienne's quite
interesting study.
108
according to Anacreon, provides a woman with the physical equivalent of the
transcendent luminosity which is what the lover sees in desire. We recall that
Anacreon describes female beauty as 'gleaming with desire and shining with
myrrh' (no8w
OTl~f3Olaa
Kai
~upolal y&yavW~&vl1
62 Sgk. Cf 444 PMG)
Accordingly, Semonides sums up the lady's appeal with the expression
'a lovely sigh!'
(Ka~ov 8&11~a
67). but quickly adds that
~he
becomes a
'misfortune' (KaKov) to her husband. The only appropriate bridegrooms for
such a woman are tyrants and kings. men who ::an afford to delight in such
•
things (69-70).
The delicate lady then finds her 'proper' place as the wife of a tyran!.
The tyrants' pleasure in such a wife is conveyed by the verb
ciy~cilë:;&'fal
which
combines, as it were, the ideas of light and delight What is delightful for the
tyrant is that such a woman contributes to his splendour
ciy~cilë:;&'fal
(aiY~l1
70), while others can admire the fine spectacle
contained in
(Ka~ov 8&11~a
67)'04.
Therefore, if our reading is correct, then inevitably the mare woman
becomes a fitting wife to a tyrant, one of his splendid possesions (notice
ËXOV'fl 68), a display item contributing to the luminosity of his tyranny along
with his gold, his horses, and his chariots.
•
At this point the passage we quoted earlier from Xenophanes becomes
a striking parallel to the passage from Semonides that we are discussing.
Just as an ci{3PTt city is necessarily dominated by a tyrant, so an ci{3PTt woman
becomes the possession of a tyrant; comparison of the two passages shows
that there is a strong analogy between a city and a woman in Greek
thought'os. Read this way, the passage where the word 'tyran!' first appears,
'04 Notice that in Epinician 3, Bacchylides uses the same verb to convey Hieron's
glorification of Apollo and himself through the tyranl's splendid offerings at Oelphi (ciYÀai(t9Ol
22; see our discussion in sedion ten of this chapter, pp. 82-83 above). As Hieron's
conspicuous piety magnifies the splendour of his tyranny, 50 in Semonides the conspicuous
beauty of the tyranl's wife magnifies the tyrant's splendour.
'05 On the analogy between woman and city see Carson 1990.160-161 and references.
109
becomes a variation on the typical early discourse on tyranny in the Greek
context.
Our reading appears to agree with the pattern of the Greek tyrants'
matrimonial practices as recorded in the work of the ancient historiographers.
ln his recent, comprehensive study of Greek tyranny, Professor J. F. McGlew
observes that conspicuous use of wives, consorts, and women in general,
seems to have been a hallmark of the Greek tyrants '06.
The specific example that Professor McGlew discusses comes from
•
Plutarch's Life of Dionysius 3.2 (cf. Diod. Sic. 14.44.3). Dionysus the Eider
of Syracuse once lost both his wife (who passed away), and his tyranny; yet
he managed quickly to regain power, and also took the opportunity to
remarry and to make his wedding a show of his power and happiness: on the
same day he married Iwo wives, a Locrian and a Syracusan, both women
from noble families. It seems that Dionysius stunned his audience by this
action. Bigamy in itself does not appear to have been especially provocative
to the Greeks. But there is no evidence to suggest that in any of the Greek
cities one couId have Iwo legitimate wives at once. On the other hand some
form or other of concubinage was often recognized by law'07. What was
provocative about Dionysius' behaviour was that he kept Iwo legitimate wives
•
at once, and further that he ostentatiously celebrated both weddings on the
very same day. Plutarch adds that Dionysius' subjects (who of course
favoured the Syracusan wife) were wondering which marriage was
consummated tirst. This is not insigniticant; consummation, as the T&hO<; of
the bond, would prioritize the wives, and hence their offspring, with serious
political consequences for transmission of power from father to son. Thus
'06 McGlew 1993.31. The examples we will study do not emphasize the 'Iuminosily'
(ACI\Inpc'rrT]C;) thatthe beautiful wife of a tyran! could contribute to his tyranny; aller ail we are
considering prose authors (for ACI\Inp6TT]C;, see our discussion of Aristophanes' Birds al the
final Iwo pages of this section). But our examples do stress that the tyrants did organize
ostentatious weddings wilh a view to display their power and magnificence to their audience,
visually and conspicuously.
107 Gemet1981.29O-291.
110
Dionysius, upon his return to Syracuse. immediately managed to capture the
attention of his subjects. and put an exclamation mark on his regalning of
power and on his renewed good fortune. Professor McGlew concludes that
'the happiness of the tyrant is. therefore. the happiness that looks for. and
IS
compounded by, a large number of admirers... And they [the tyrants] also
made public the liberty they enJvyed from the constraints that were imposed
on the domestic behaviour of their subjects·'08
For other relevant examples ProfesslJr McGlew refers us to Louis
•
Gernel's work on the marital politics of the Greek tyrants'09 We will consider
Iwo such examples both of which emphasize that the occasion of marriage
offered tyrants ample opportunity for ostentatious display of their power and
good fortune. These Iwo particular cases are best understood in the ligh. of
Professor Gernel's overall argument. We need not reproduce the elaborate
argumenl's details. Its main point is quite simple. The tyrants' excesses. in
their matrimonial practices, were not completely original. but had their models
in legends and myths that predated the establishment of the polis. Often
willingly the tyrants revived matrimonial practices that the polis had
abolished, biJt which were weil known from epic poetry. And often the tyrants
even outdid their epic models (the Homeric kings) in the extravagance they
•
displayed on the occasion of marriage. Professor Gernet concludes 110:
Tyranny inaugurated a long-lived Western tradition of positivism
and amorality. However, although a late phenomenon, the tyrant
was a natural product of the past, if only in his quest for the
privileges that characterized him and were familiar to his own
nation. His excesses had their models in legends that reflected
conditions older than the polis. Thus he had his own mythology,
which brought him into harmony with certain heritages of thought
... Every act of the tyrant could weil be wonderfully offhanded; but
his actions also reveal a form of archaism that is not of his own
making.
Ica McGlew 1993.30-31.
Gemet 1981.289-302.
110 Gemet 1981289.
109
111
Our first relevant case concems Cleisthenes of Sicyon (Herodotus 6.126130) This tyrant Jnvited to Sicyon
a
great number of noblemen from ail
around Greece, who would participate in an elabora:e competition, the
winner of which would marry his daughter. Competition for the hand of a
princess is a nuptial theme weil known from epic. We need only recall the
elite princes who gathered in Sparta bearing lavish gifts to vie for the hand of
Helen. The foot-race (which Odysseus won) for the hand of Penelope also
readily cornes to mind. Finally we recall the competition in archery between
•
Penelope's suitors in the Odyssey'''. Cleisthenes followed this theme in his
own daughter's marriage with extravagance. He kept the suitors at his home
and offered them lavish hospltality ior an enlire year, during which he would
select the groom after having observed ail suitors. They competed in several
events including foot-racing and wrestling (for this purpose Cleisthenes had a
racetrack and a naÀalcnpa built on his own property), and they were even
tested in table etiquette
Cleisthenes eventually decided to marry his
daughter to Megacles. a powerful Athenian of the Alcmaeonid clan. The
wedding ceremony was in itself abundantly splendid. It included a public
feast for ail Sikyonians. Why was Cleisthenes so concerned to give a
magniflcent show to the suitors and to ail of Sikyon? Professor L. Gernet
•
succincliy answers as follows 112:
For a year Cleisthenes dazzled the suitors with his wealth and
generosity. Finally he settled on Megacles of Athens, an
Alcmaeonid. According to Herodotus this is how the Alcmaeonids
became famous... Cleisthenes was a grand prince, and it was
enough for him to give an ostentatious show to ail the suitors,
especiaily to the one who would eventuaily be selected, for this
would prove his prestige beyond question.
", On the competition between Helen's suitors, see Hesiod 'l'Ile C3.;ûogue;,; o( \\'omcn
fragment 68, in Evelyn-White 1914.192 and following. See also Apollodorus 3.10.8. On
Odysseus' foot-race for the hand of Penelope, see ApollodOrus 3.10.6-9. On the contest of
!~.!! bow between Penelope's suitors, see Odysscy 19.559 and following.
'" Gemet1981.299.
112
Cleisthenes was weil aware of the political benefits that his daughter and his
wealth could win for him. And he treated his daughter exactly as he treated
his wealth: as a precious object through which he could display his
magnificence to his subjeets and to ail of Greece" 3 . Just as Gyges had given
away his money in the form of splendid offerings to the temple at Pytho, and
by doing so had magnified both the god and himself, so Cleisthenes, in most
spiendid fashion, gave away his daughter in marriage, and managed by his
ostentatious show to magnify both his son-in-Iaw, and himself ln dOlng so he
•
captured, and perhaps even surpassed, the grandness of the klngs of epic
like Tyndareus and lcarius, whom legend represented as having organized
similarly impressive competitions for the hand of their daughters.
Megacles learned his lesson weil from his father-in-Iaw. When the lime
had come for him to give his own daughter to marriage, he had already
managed to send Peisistratus, his political enemy to exile, but he hlmself had
fallen into disfavour with several members of his own party. He therefore
decided to fonm an alliance with his old enemy Peisistratus, whom he Invited
back to Athens and back to the tyranny, on the condition that the lalter would
marry the fonmer's daughter. Peisistratus agreed, and both men staged an
elaborate show for the tyranl's return. They c10thed in full armour a tall and
•
beautiful girl, appropriately named Phye ('Stature'). and drove with her
through the streets of Athens in a chariot, while heralds ail over town were
spreading the news that Athena herself was bringing Pei si stratus back to the
city (Herodotus 1 .60, 1-5).
According to Herodotus, most Athenians appear to have been genuinely
convinced by the ruse, and seem to have thought that the girl was indeed
Athena herself. This has troubled a host of scholars most of whom are
convinced that the episode never took place. W. R. Connor however has
advanced an argument, based on parallel passages elsewhere in Greek
113 On Cleisthenes' magnificence and ils political motivation, see Farenga 1985.47-48; see
also Kurke 1991.180-181, especially n. 37. p,180, where Prof. Kurke cites Farenga.
113
Iiterature, that the event was actual, but the Ather.ians were not duped by the
trick. Most of them probably understood that the girl was not the goddess, but
enjoyed the elaborate ceremony, and through their cheers they let their
approval be known' 14
ln any case both Megacles and Peisistratus succeded in producing the
desired effeet, the likening of the latter to the Homeric heroes whom Athena
attended. Just as Cleisthenes earlier had magnified himself by magnifying his
daughter's bridegroom Megacles, so Megacles himself, at a difficult moment
•
in his career, contrived a plan that magnified both his prospective son in law
(and tyrant), and himself.
1think that our own interpretation of ,emonides' passage on the Ql3pT'J
woman, a document dating from the time of tyranny's earliest appearance in
the Greek world, complements Professor Gernel's ideas. In the examples we
have studied so far, the tyrant makes conspicuous use of women as objects
of TIIJT'J with a view to recapturs the grandness of the Homeric kings, and thus
to impress his own magnificence and happiness to his audience. Similarly in
our passage from Semonides we find an extravagant lady who is 'a beautiful
sighl' (KoÀàv eE:T'JlJo 67), and who contributes to the happiness and splendour
(both concepts conveyed by àYÀcii1;cTOl 70) both of a tyrant and of an old-
•
fashioned Homeric-style sceptered king"S
It would be appropriate at this point to consider once more Herodotus'
account of the story of Candaules, Gyges, and the Queen"s, Professor
Gernet does not make mention of this tale, perhaps because it has to do with
Lydian (and not Greek) tyranny; but the story clearly follows the pattern
established by our prevous examples. We note at the outset that although
Candaules was clearly a legitimate king, the last member of the Heraclid
Connor 1987.42 and following
11~ ln this context, recall Agamemnon's pride in the 'build' and 'stature' of his concubine
Chryseis <œI.tac; ... qlUIJV lli~d 1.115), who had been given to him as a war prize' (ytpac;
lJi~ 1.118, 1.120).
116 We first discussed this story in the first chapter of our essay. See our chapter one, section
seven, and references ciled therein.
11.
114
dynasty, Herodotus mentions him as 'tyranf
(TUpaVV~
1ï2), whlle referring
to ail of his Heraclid ancestors as 'kings' (for instance: 'Aypwv
TlPWT~
'HpaKÀCli5wv
l3acnÀc~
CYCVCTO
~api5IWV
~cv
yap
1, ï2) We shall conslder the
reason for this further on, For the moment we concentrate on Candaules'
behaviour, This tyrant 1 king was obviously 'overcome by desire' (Hdt 1 8.1)
for his wife and queen, But this eros was manifested ln a most abnormal way
Candaules pays attention only to the queen's outward appearance, and
demonstrates a perverted need that others admire the queen's beauty as weil
•
as he, So he contrives a scheme so that hls favourite bodyguard see the
queen naked with the weil known disastrous consequences The abnormality
of Candaules' desire is emphasized in Professor Stewart Flory's diScussion
of this Herodotean tale 117
His [Herodotus') tale begins with the directness and Immediacy of
a folktale: "Now this Candaules was smitten by a passion for his
own wife, and in this passion he believed her to be the mast
beautiful of ail women" The vivid I1pao8!'J, "was smltten by a
passion" (1.8.1), alerts us to a peculiar situation, for It seems
unlikely that a sovereign monarch should be unable to satisfy his
passion for his wife. The next clause, however, makes clear what
is even more peculiar: this passion cannot be satisfied by normal
means. His obsession, rather, fixes on his wlfe's physlcal
appearance and on compelling others to share his admiration for
her beauty: "His belief in her beauty had the following result He
had a certain spear bearer he particularly liked, Gyges the son of
Daskylus, and he therefore not only confided in this Gyges about
important affars but was always praising to the skies to him his
wife's beauty" (1,8.1). These words carry on the impression of an
abnormal sexuality, for Candaules' admiration is only of his wife's
"appearance", di5~"e.
•
", Flory 1987,32, See also Cartledge 1993.84.
1have quoted Flory Qt length because his discussion of our Herodotean tale highlights the
concepts that make this passage an excellent parallel to the passage from Semonides that
we are discussing in this section. In Herodotus' story, a king who is portrayed as a tyrant is
married to 'a woman who far surpasses ail others in beauty' (yuvailla noÀÀOV naaÉ"'v
KaAAicm,v 1,8,1, naaÉ"'v yuvall«"v KaÀÀiaTTlv 1.8.2). The lady inspires in her husband a
compelling passion (i)paae'l ' .. Épaaecic; 1.8.1). This passion expresses itself in the tyrant's
excessive pride in his wife's physical appearanceand in his aberrant need that others see
and admire his wife's beauty (TO ci&><; Ti;c; YUVQlKO<; ùncpcna,vÉ"'v 1.8.1, 9CflOCal . . .
9c!iaaa9a, 1.8.2), ln striking similarity we encounter in Semonides 7W tyrants and kings who
find an appropriate wife in a lady whO represents the most beautiful female type (compare
118
115
We may now consider the reason why Herodotus refers to Candaules as
'tyran!'. In his study of the word
TUpaVVOC;
in Herodotus, Professor A. Ferill
argues that 'when Herodotus used the word tyrannos, he i,;sed it with the
connotation of arbitrary, despotic, and evil government, and he was very
consistent in using it that way'"S. Now Herodotus recognized that Oriental
monarchy was constitutionally legitimate (and for this reason he regularly
referred to the Lydian and Persian kings as
•
l3a01À!:IC;),
but also understood
that the Eastern kings' unlimited authority gave them scope for the kind of
arbitrary, despotic, and hubristic exercise of power that most Greeks
assoclated with tyranny. Thus, 'an oriental monarch was a legitimate
basileus. but the hubris of a Persian king made him a tyrannos, a major
theme of the Persian wars"20. Professer Ferrill further observes that '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,,2'.
Thus, when Herodotus introduces an oriental king as 'tyran!' he usually
means to indicate to his audience that the tale he will proceed to narrate will
include a serious c.ffence cQmmitted by tr,e ruler in question. This is precisely
the manner in which Herodotus introduces Candaules, and the historian
•
takes pains to emphasize that by exposing the queen, Candaules committed
a serious offence against the Lydian unwritten law which protected the aidos
Phokylides fr. 2 Diehl: il ô· innou xa'TT)&001J<: ... &i6o<; àploTT), and who exerts a powerful
erotic 'compulsion' on her husband (àvaYK'l 62). This eros expresses itself in the tyrant's
'delight' in such a wife (TOlOUTO"; 9lJI,tov àYÀaK;&Ta, 70). The tyrant's delight is enhanced
because 'such a woman is a fine sight for others' (KaÀov J.l&V WV 8i'lJ.la TOlauTT) YUV'l àÀÀOlOl
67-68; we recall from our discussion of our previous exalT!ples that the tyrants were very
much concemed to display their prized possessions ostentatiously to others), and hence
conlribules 10 lhe luminosily of his lyranny (again conveyed by àYÀaW;&TOl 70). The
addilional element in Semonides is Ihe reference to luminosity. Bul Ihe striking parallels
between our Semonidean passage and our Herodotean tale (whose source, as we menlioned
in section seven of our first chapler, was probably Archilochus 23W, a document dating from
Semonides' lime; see Clay 1986.7-17, and Nagy 1990.289), make me wonder whether
Semonides had in mind lhe tale of Candaules, Gyges, and the Queen, when he was
composing his portrayal of the àflp'l lady.
119 Ferrill 1978.391.
'''' Ferrill 1978.391-392.
'" Ferrill 1978.394.
116
of both men and women. And considenng our diScussion ln thls chapter. It
comes as no surprise that Candaules' ·tyrannicar offence sprang from hls
excessive need to display to others the visual beauty of his wife.
It seems difficult to escape the conclusion that tyranny in the Greek
context often went hand in hand with an aberrant need to dlsplay tyranmcal
power and splendour conspicuously, where goOO fortune was often present
in the form of beautiful wemen. And that the occasion of the tyranfs
own
marriage (or the occasion of the marriage of those closest to hlm) offered
•
abundant opportunity for such display. As we saw, such ostentatious displays
were not restricted to the age of the tyrants, but reflected matnmonlal
practices wU known from epic. But the very
tact that through their surpasslng
wealth the tyrants managed to revive the impresslve displays of the
legendary kings of epic \whose praetices were suited to a society that
predated the establishment of the polis). clearly shows the extravagance of
the tyrants. And, as we saw, in thls respect, the tyrants often even surpassect
their legendary models.
So far then we have seen that several examples from hlstonography
lend considerable support to our Interpretalion of the passage from
Semonides. At this point. our argument would be conslderably strengthened
•
if we could find another passage from poetry in whlch a beauliful wife
contributes to the splendour (ÀQI.lnpoT'lC:;) of tyranny. We do encounter such a
passage in what is perhaps the unlikeliest of sources. Aristophanes' Birds:
WTplC1J.lOKQplOV m'lVOv OpVlSwV yèvoc:;,
oèXe:a9e: TOV Tupavvov OÀI3IOlC:; OO\.lOlC:;.
T1pOC1èPXe:TOl yap oioc:; OÙTe: TlQl.ltp<1'lC:;
àcnilp ioe:Îv eÀQI.l~ xpuaauye:Î o6llw
oüEl' ilÀiou T'lÀauyèc:; C1KTivwv oèÀac:;
TOIClÙTOV &~èÀQI.l~v, oiov epxe:TOl
exwv YUVOlKO<; KàÀÀOC:; où tp<1TOV Àe:ye:IV,
TlàÀÀwv K&paUVOV m&poqx)pov tolOC:; !3&ÀOC:;.
6C7J.Iil o' àvwv6Ilacnoc:; &ic:; l3oEloc; KUKÀOU
Xwp&î, KaÀOV &'ll-la. 8uI-IlQl.lOTWV
o'aÙpal olal\K1iPoucn TlÀe:KTOV'lV KaTlVOÙ. (Birds 1707-1717)
117
o thrice blessed flying race of birds'
Receive your master at his prosperous halls.
He arrives, no star has radiated so conspicuously
in its home brilliant with golden rays.
Nor has the far flashing light of the sun
radiated as gloriously as he who arrives
bringing a bride too beautiful for words,
carrying the thunderboltthe winged weapon of Zeus.
An unspeakably superb scent goes up to the hollow
of the sky, a lovely sight: and the breezes
unravelthe wreath of smoke from the incense.
•
These are the opening lines of the play's final scene. On this passage Sir
Kenneth Dover comments as follows: The final scene, introduced by a
messenger proclaiming a splendid hotch-potch of poetic hyperboles is the
wedding procession of Peisetairos and Basileia,122. The poetic hyperboles
emphasize the point
Wt=
are making. The tyrant's return is described with
blinding il'1ages of luminosity and with repetition of the verb
À~nw.
Notice
the conclusive statement on the scene: it is a KaÀov 8elllla as in Semonides.
ln this Aristophanic passage, even the smell of the incense is expressed in
visual terms m. It is this passage, then, more than any other that helps
convince us that we were on the right track when we interpreted our passage
•
from Semonides as we did.
With Semonides, we have concluded our discussion of the theme of
desire, tyranny, vision and luminosity, and we have returned to the age of
Archilochus. We may now proceed to summarize the argument of this
chapter, and to offer our concluding remarks on Archilochus fr. 19W, which
provided us with the staring point of our exploration.
'22
COyer 1972.143.
m The construction of smell as vision is possible in the Greek language. but not frequent.
see Sommerstein ad /oc.
118
2.13 CONCLUSION: THE CONSPICUOUS VISIBllITY OF TYRANNY 1
FINAL REMARKS ON ARCHILOCHUS 19W
As we appraoch the end of th;s lengthy (and quite adventurous)
chapter, let us summarize our argument on tyranny and desire. We began
our inquiry in section three of this chapter with consideration of Archilochus'
striking expression
epew .upavviooc:;.
VVe asked: 'What is it that makes
tyrannical ambition a kind of desire that can appropriately be termed eras?'
Our search therefore began for the property that different objects of eros
•
have in common. In sections four and six we saw that Arisotle, Plato, and
Plutarch, ail argued that vision is the primary sensory stimulus to desire, and,
in sections four to eight we considered numerous passages both from poetry
and from prose that lend considerable support to the above mentioned
philosophers' suggestion. We realized then that the property we were
searching should be visible
124
.
In section six we noticed that in his account of
desire in the Phaedrus, Plato argues that the lover conceives desire at the
moment when he perceives a certain transcendent lurroinosity
(Àa~npO'l1C:)
in
the countenance of the beloved. This r::ldiant vision captivates the gaze of
the lover, and with this gaze desire f10ws in through the eyes. In section nine
we discovered that in Thucydides tyranny is also characterized by ÀClIJnpO'l1C:
•
(which in this case is better translated as 'splendour'), and that this splendour
couId indeed captivate the gazes of beholders so as to inspire in them eras
for tyranny. Thus, in ÀClIJnpO'l1C: we found the required visible property that
makes tyranny an appropriate object of eras. The hypothesis that was
formulated on the basis of the work done in sections three to nine was: 'As
the radiance of beauty is to the lover, so the splendour of tyranny is to the
tyrannical "lover"'. We then directed our energies toward strengthening this
basic hypothesis by detecting a theme in lyric poetry centered around the
'24 That the required property should be visible was already suggested by the way
Archilochus' speaker in fr. 19W fonnulated his response to tyranny. There he stated that he
is not overcome by eros for tyranny 50 far as such a thing is not present in his sight.
119
Iinked concepts of tyranny, desire vision, and luminosity. Since Archilochus,
tyranny has been associated with wealth in the form of gold. In sections ten
and eleven we examined passages from Bacchylides and from choral odes in
tragedy in which tyrannical gold, properly displayed, was represented as
characterized by transcendent
Àa~mpcrrTlC:
capable of inspiring eras. Much
then of the splendour of tyranny derives from the gold that is associated with
il. Finally, in section twelve and in the context of our interpretation of
Semonides 7W 57-70, we saw that tyrants' conspicuous marriages also
•
contributed to the splendour that made tyranny an object of eras. Thus our
work in the three prevous sections has hopefully fulfilled its purpose of
strengthening and deepening our basic hypothesis, and has shown its
usefulness in interpreting the early poems on tyranny that we discussed
therein.
Let us now retum once more to our starting point, Archilochus fr. 19W,
to take a general view of the fragment from the vantage point that our work
so far affords us. It is only fitting to end this chapter by bidding proper
farewell to this poem which, in spite of its short length and tough content, has
proven to be Ileva and nOÀUXpuaov (to use Archilochus' own words), in the
sense that it has provided the starting point for many insights, which, in my
•
opinion at least, have modestly enriched both our understanding of the Greek
concept of tyranny and our appreciation of the Greek experience of desire.
The poem begins with a consideration of what a paradigmatic tyrant
enjoys (Ta njV&W 1). This is progressively expanded as immense wealth
(noÀU)(pùcou 1), divine favour (9&lilv tpva 2-3), and great power
(Tupavvi~cx:
3). The expeeted response to tyranny is also considered, in terms of the
emotions that tyranny provokes. These are also progressively revealed and
strengthened. What begins as mere 'care' or 'concem' (lleÀ&l 1), is expanded
to envy
(~i'\ÀCX:
2), indignation (ciVaiOl.lQl 2), and finally desire so powerful that
120
can be termed e'Os (i:pi:w 3)'25. The excessive good fortune of tyranny is
assumed to meet with an equally excessive emotional response. And having
discussed the close connection between the emotions mentioned and vision
we may appreciate the force of the final verse. Archilochus' speaker denies
that tyranny has any emotional grip on him at the moment
(llW
2). The
'blessings' of tyranny do not affect him so long as tyranny is not visible to
him. This will probably not be the case once the splendour of tyranny
appears before his eyes.
•
Indeed it seems that ever since the Greeks knew tyranny, tyrants were
intent on making their fortunes conspicuous and visible. Scholars have
noticed a pattern according to which the earliest appearance of tyranny in
Greece and elsewhere was followed by tyrants' conspicuous offerings at
Panhellenic centers. One scholar terms this large-scale display of wealth
'public thesaurization,'26. Gyges himself comfortably fits this pattern through
his lavish offerings at Delphi which included 'immense amounts of gold'
(Xpooov
cinÀ&TOV
Herodotus 1.14.1), and were positioned next to the treasury
of Cypselus, tyrant of Corinth.
Lively participation at the games, enthusiastic fostering of trade, keen
interest in organizing impressive public festivals, conspicuous patronage of
•
poetry and the arts, large-scale construction projects (sanctuaries, altars,
'25 ln his study of the poetic technique of the Greek lyric poets, Professor R. L. Fowler noies
that, in general, Archilochus' fragments 'move from weaker to stronger expressions of the
central idea, [and) the desicive argument is placed at the end' (Fowler 1987.72: see also the
references in Fowler's note 57 p. 123). Our remarks in this section show how in fr. 19W the
basic concepts are progressively expanded and strengthened. And the whole of this lengthy
chapter may be viewed as a sustained effort to elucidate exactly how desicive the argument
of the final line really is. Thus our efforts demonstrate that aside from the richness of ils
content, Archilochus fragment 19W is also a prime example of Archilochus' poetic virtuosity.
'26 Farenga 1985.42-46. See also Kurke 1991.180-181. Professor Kurke (in her note 37 p.
180) ciles Farenga in this connection, and suggests that in this phenomenon of earty
tyrannical 'public thesaurization' we may perhaps trace the origin of the virtue that was 181er
called l'cYl1Àonptnt:lQ by Aristotle. For more on l'cYQ).onptnt:lQ, see our discussion of
Sacchylides' third epinician ode in section ten of this chapter. For archaeological evidence
on the rise of a new form of public magnificence in the Archaic age, of which tyrannical
public thesaurization is an extreme example, see also Morris 1986.9-13 (ciled in Kurke
1991.180 n. 37). For a very interesting discussion of the social and historical factors that
brought about this new form of public magnificence, see van Wees 1992.162-165.
121
temples, civic buildings, ships etc.), pompous and provocative marriage
ceremonies, and magnificent offerings at the Oelphic shrine and elsewhere,
ail contributed to display and magnify the tyrant's splendour, and to impress
the tyrant's assumed happiness visibly127. As one recent critic has succinclty
stated, 'the happiness of the tyrant is, therefore, the happiness that looks for,
and is compounded by, a large number of admirers,128.
A worthwhile complement to our study of the formai representations of
tyrannical
•
ÀQllnpOTT]C;
in poetry would attempt to enlarge on these points, by
examining how the phenomenon of tyranny's conspicuous visibility could be
placed in its social and historical context'29. For the moment, and to conclude
our essay, we note that while Archilochus fr. 19W appears at first to be a
proud and defiant rejection of ail that was believed to be attractive about
tyranny, it proves on closer inspection to amount to testimony to the powerful
grip that the visible aspects of tyrannical splendour had on its audience's
emotions. The words are put into the mouth of a carpenter, a common man,
•
'" For a useful, and very weil written, overview of ail of these aspects of tyrannical
enterprise, with particularly fine discussion of the glorious endeavours of Periander,
Polycrates, and Peisistratus, see Woodcock 1989.27-40. On the magnificent achievements
of the Corinthian, Samian, and Athenian tyrannies, see aise White 1955.10-17, a highly
regarded study. Professer White draws particular attention to the Corinthian tyrants' splendid
dedicalions at Delphi and Olympia, which rivalled even those of the Lydian tyrants (12).
White aise lays emohasis on Periander's famous public building project and on his patronage
of the sciences, arts, and poetry. She concludes: the magnificent programme of public
works and this galaxy of artists and poets made the Samian tyranny one of the most brilliant
and memorable in Greek history' (14). Finally Professer White focuses on the remarkable
constuction programme of Peisistratus, the most impressive one in Greece (15-16; for a
recent, specialized study of Peisistratus' public building program, see Shapiro 1989; see aise
Boersma 1970), and on his establishment of impressive public festivals (16-17; for another
fine discussion of Peisistratus' interest in providing cuits for the people, and its polilical
significance, see Snodgrass 1980.115-118). On conspicuous patronage of poetry by tyrants
in Pindar's time and the polities behind il, see McGlew 1993.35-51, especially 42-43. Further,
in section ten of this chapter, we drew attention to Hieron's shrewd use of wealth to magnify
himself by buying a chariot victory at Olympia, organizing a splendid public celebration of his
victory. and sending magnificent offerings to Delphi. For a Iist of tyrants for whom Pindar
and Bacchylides wrote victory odes, see McGlew 1993.35. Finally, on tyrants' conspicuous
marital polities, see section twelve of this chapter and references cited therein.
". McGlew 1993.31.
':9 For overviews of this topic, 1 refer my reader to the references cited in our note 125
above.
122
and so we may safely assume that they represented a common and
widespread view.
•
•
123
Appendix 1
THE IMAGE OF THE FLAYED TYRANT IN GEORGE SEFERIS' POEM "ErD
AInAIlAeDN . .. "
ln this Appendix we continue the discussion of section six of our first
chapter. lt is not directly relevant to our thesis which concerns itself with
tyranny in ancient Greece, but 1 feel that it is worthwhile to mention in this
space that Solon's image of the flayed tyrant (an image we also encountered
•
in Plato Repub/ic 616a) reappears in modern Greek poetry, specifically in the
very last poem that George Seferis wrote, titled ''Eni à(J'naAà(J(J)v. , . ':' The
poem was completed on the 31 st of March, 1971, and was first published in
the Athenian newspaper "Té Bii~Q" on September 23,1971, three days after
the poet's death, This absolutely remarkable work which includes a creative
translation of part of Plato Republic 616a (a passage on the mythical tyrant
Ardiaeus), was composed during the oppressive time when Greece was ruled
by the military dictatorship. The opening lines of the poem read as follows:
'HTQV WpalO Té IaUVIO TTl ~&pa &Ke:ivn TOÙ Eùayye:ÀlOllOÙ
nci.ÀI ~t TTlV àVOl~n (Seferis ''Eni à07TaAàec.lV. .. " 1-2)
•
Beautiful was the Sounion on that day of the Annunciation
again with the coming of spring.
Let us concentrate on WpalO (ancient Greek WpalOV) in the first line. In
modern Greek this very common adjective simply means 'beautiful'. But in a
poem which contains a translation of a Platonic passage, and which, as we
shall argue, stresses the continuity of the Greek spirit, the original, ancient
meaning of the ward is to be kept in mind. After ail we are discussing the
work of a Greek poet who was aIse a very erudite Hellenist.
1 Unfortunately 1 have not been able to find a discussion of this poem in English. But
interested readers of modem Greek will find a complete texl of the poem, together wilh a
thoughtful essay on it, in Argyriou 1986.269-277.
124
We explain: the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) coincides with a
national Greek holiday, the commemoration of the Revolution of the 2sth of
March, 1821 againstthe Ottoman empire From ancienttimes, as chapter !WO
of our thesis emphasizes tyrannies were ever addicted to elaborate displays
of power and splendour. So on the 2sth of March, 1971 the military regime
that was ruling Greece at the time took ample advantage of the national
festivity, and of the celebration of the 150 years fram the Greek Revolution,
to organize a pompous military procession in Athens. The clamour and glitter
•
of the military show was of course difficult for the poet to stomach. Thus the
calmness (raÀllvll 8) of the landscape at the Sounion, weil over fortY miles
from Athens, on that agreeable spring day of the annunciation, was not only
'beautiful' but also 'timely' (cilpalo 1).
ln the tranquil landscape of the Sounion, !wo things most strongly
capture the poet's attention; first the pillars of what remains of Poseidon's
temple. They are strikingly described as 'harp strings that echo still'
(X~èC;
I.llàC; ëipnac; àVTllXoùV àKÔI.lll 7). Secondly the many aspalathos bushes with
their yellow blossoms and their sharp, menacing thoms (4-6). The poet
emphasizes that the name of the bush has not changed since ancient times
(11-12). This observation brings to the poet's mind the passage from the
•
Republic that refers to Ardiaeus. He proceeds to translate it in part:
To I3pci~u I3pÎlKa TTlV m:pü(oniJ:
"Tov ë~&aav X&lpOnooClpC1" l.làC; À&&l
"TOV ëpl~av XàI.lCll Kai TOV ëy~ClpC1v
TOV ëaupav napcilJ&pa TOV KaTa~&cn(laav
ànavCil aToùc; àYKae&poùc; àanaÀa9ouc;
Kai m;yav Kai TOII n&Ta~aV aTOV TcipTapo, Koup&ÀI" (13-18)
That evening 1found the passage:
"They tied him up hand and foot" he [Plato] tells us
"they threw him down and f1ayed him
they dragged him aside they tore him apart
on the thomy aspalathos bushes
and went and threw him into the Tartarus, a rag"
125
The final !WO verses follow. They read as follows:
"ETOl aTOV KClTW KOalJO nÀepWV& Ta KpilJaTa TOU
6 nalJqluÀloC; 'Apolaloc; 6 navci.eÀloc; Tupavvoc; (19-20)
Thus in the underworld he kept paying for his crimes
Pamphylian Ardiaeus the thoroughly wicked Tyrant.
At the beginning of our discussion 've noted that the opening lines of the
poem contain a covert reference to the military dictators of Greece at the time
of the poem's composition. With the name of Ardiaeus and the explicit
•
mention of tyranny in the final verse, the poem returns to the thought of
oppressive rulers in a striking example of ring composition. Two aspects of
these conclusive lines will concern us here. First note that Seferis does not
refer to Ardiaeus' punishment as a completed event but rather, with the use
of the imperfect tense in nÀepwv& (verb nÀTlpWvw derived from the ancient
Greek verb nÀTlPÔW), he represents the punishment as a continuous,
excruciating
affair.
Secondly
these
verses
display
harsh
language
uncharacteristic of Seferis. Specifically, use of the vulgar form nMpwv&
(rather than use of the more frequent and more dignified nÀ1'1pwv&) betrays
unexpected Cmxa1p&KaKia on the poet's part at the tyrant's excruciating
•
punishment. Further note the arresting epithE" navci.eÀloc;, an
ë.na~
&ipTllJevov
in Seferis. This adjective in modern Greek retains the ancient meaning of
'exceedingly wretched', but in several contexts also acquires strong moral
overtones and approaches the meaning of 'thoroughly wicked,2.
Thus the concluding statement of the poem stresses the ideas of
endurance in time and of harshness. These !WO verses themselves have
withstood the test of time; they carry as powerful an effect today as they did
at the time of their first publication. Further the effect these verses have is
itself harsh. The!wo concluding verses therefore may easily be characterized
as enduring and harsh.
: Argyriou 1986.276-277 duly notes the striking effect of the words llav<i.8hlOC; and llhtpwve.
126
One thing mentioned in the poem is also characterized by these same
!WO properties of endurance in time and of harshness: the aspalathos bush. It
is harsh through the sharpness of its needles; and it endures in time in
several ways: as a continuous aspect of the Greek landscape: as a word that
has remained unchanged in the Greek language: and as the instrument that
continuously tortures the tyrant Ardiaeus in the underworld 3
The poet's message is now becoming clearer. As the thorns of the
aspalathos will forever tear away at the tyrant's f1esh in the afterlife, so
•
Seferis' poem, as though a thorn, will enduringly tear away at the
posthumous reputation of the particular dictators who tyrannically oppressed
Greece at the time of the poem's composition, and more generally will tear
away at the reputation of any regime that exercises tyrannically oppressive
rule 4
We will conclude our discussion of this poem by focusing on the other
object mentioned in it that endures in time; the remaining pillars of
Poseidon's temple. They represent ancient Greek civilization which has come
down to us in the form of relies of art and architecture, and in the form of
literature which is itself fragmentary. The pillars are strikingly represented as
strings of an instrument whose song echoes still. What is the music that
•
these strings play? One possible interpretation would be that it is the music
of ancient Greek lyric poetry. Indeed, the particular poem of Seferis that we
are discussing and which was largely inspired by calm contemplation of the
pillars (contemplation which enabled the poet to 'hear' their voice) can easily
be viewed as the contemporary echo of Solon 33W, and as a powerful
My sister points out to me that the aspalathos bush displays biological endurance as weil. It
can survive for the longest periods of time with no water and under harsh weather conditions.
4 Notice the prominent positioning of the ward TUpavv~ at the very end of the poem. By
designating Ardiaeus as a tyran!' (and as nothing else) and by capitalizing the first letler of
the ward TUpavv~ (thus emphasizing that Ardiaeus is only one specifie member of the more
general elass of tyrants), the poet makes c1ear that his indignation is directed against tyrants
in general.
3
127
testament to the resonance of the music of ancient Greek lyric poetry
opposmg tyranny.
•
•
'.
128
Appendix Il
I1AMF077-ŒIN PLATO'S TlMAEUS
The discussion in this Appendix is meant to supplement the ideas we
de...eloped in section eight of our second chapter 1 should point out at the
outset that the argument presented here is experimental and in any case
certainly not as solid as our arguments elsewhere. Nevertheless, 1decided to
include it in this space, since the material presented here may help us
•
develop further familiarity with the very important for our discussion of
tyranny concept of ÀOlmpOTl'lC;, and may even suggest yet another Iink
between ÀOI,mpèTl'lC; and eros.
We encounter a captivating theoretical discussion of
Ào~npoT'1C;
in
Plato's Timaeus, in the context of a theory of the physiology of vision (67c68c). In this theory
À~npèTl'lC;
is the central concept. As one would expect
from the context of what purports to be a scientific explanation of sight, the
word
ÀO~npèTl'lc;
is used here in its basic and most common sense as
'brightness'. Nevertheless the ideas presented in this locus may perhaps
prove quite suggestive for an understanding of the 'radiance' of desire. At
•
this point 1wish to emphasize once again that the ideas we will discuss here
are not strictly Platonic. Plato's theory of vision, in its essential features, is
nothing more than a refinement of the Empedoclean physiology of sight, and
is again based on the doctrine of the effluences. Moreover, the theory is,
significantly, not expounded by "Socrates", but by a character named
Timaeus who is portrayed as a Pythagorean philosopher'.
According then to "Timaeus", and to most Greek philosophers who have
ventured to explain sight, visible objects give off effluences of vision, while
the perceiving eye emits a thin ray of light called the 'visual stream' (Ô\jI&wc;
, R. B. Onians, in a work that is truly a triumph of philologicallhinking, traces, among many
other things, the common basis of several Greek theories of vision including the one
presented in Plato's Timacus. See Onians 1951.76 and following.
129
P&ÙlJa). Sight is produced as an interaction between the visual stream, the
effluences from the bodies, and the eye itself. When the visible effluences
are thicker than the visual stream, they compress it, and the result is what we
cali 'black'. In contrast 'white' effluences are thin so as to dilate the visual
stream, but not swift enough to reach the eye itself. Effluences from red
objects pierce the visual stream, reach the pores of the eye, and affect il. A
much more powerful effect is produced by objects that are 'bright'
(Àa~npov).
"Brightness" therefore in Greek 'scientific' thought does not represent
•
intensity of colour as it does in modem physics, but is itself a colour, indeed
the colour par excellence, since ail the otller colours that we did not mention
are simply mixtures of
À~np6v
with red, white, and black in varying
proportions (Timat'us 68b and following). The effect of À~TlPOV effluences is
described in the quite stunning passage that follows:
•
... TTtV <5i: ~UTi:paV <pOpàv KaÎ yi:vou<; rwp6<; i:Ti:pOU Tlpo<mimouoav
KaÎ <5laKpivouoav TT]V ÔIjJlv ~i:Xpl TWV 6~~àTWV, aÙTàc; TC TWV
èqlElaÀ~wv Tàc; èSIC~OOOUc; l3ia èSlw8oùoav Kai TllKouoav, Ttùp ~i:v
àElp60v KaÎ oowp, Ô <5àKpuov KQÀOÙ\JCV, È:KCl8cv È:Kxi:ouoav, aGTT]V <5i:
oùoav Ttùp i:~ È:vavTiac; àTlaVTWOav, Ka'l TOÙ ~i:v È:KTl11èSWVTOc; 1'l\IPO<;
olov àTl' àOTpaTliic;. TOÙ <5i: CiOlOVTO<; KaÎ Tlcpi TO VOTCpOV
KaTa0j3cvv~i:vou. TlaVTOOaTlWV È:v Tij KUKll0Cl TaùTn YlYVO~i:vwv
Xpl&lI.lciTWV, ~awapuYàc; ~i:v Tél TlciElo<; TlpOOciTlO~CV, Tél èSi: ToùTo
àTlcpya~èIJcvov À~npèv TC Kai OTiÀl3ov È:TlWV~cio~cv. (Timaeus
67e-68a)
A swifter motion that belongs to a different kind of tire which hits
upon the visual stream and penetrates it right up to the eyes, and
forcefully displaces and melts the pores of the eyes themeselves,
and causes the discharge of tire commingled with water, what we
cali a tear. This incoming fire meets the fire leaping forth from the
opposite direction. The latter leaps forth like lightning from the
eye, while the former enters it and is quenched in the moisture. Ali
kinds of colours arise in this confusion; we cali this effect
"dazzling", and the object that produces it "bright" and "gleaming".
When 1tirst read this passage for a course on the history of science, 1could
not help but wonder at Plato's faSCination with brightness, fascination which
130
his words here so eloquently betray. Perhaps we may partially explain hls
excitement by noticing that this theory on the physiology of perception of
basic brightness is possibly what underlies Plato's i:Iccount in the Ph:lt'drus of
the physiology associated with the radiance of eTOS. eros being a topic that
fascinates not only Plato. but ail of us.
Let us explain what we mean. As we have seen. it is
~~npoTTl<:
that the
lover sees when he receives effluences of desire. This observation
encourages us to see if we can find common elements between effluences of
•
desire and effluences of bnghtness. Indeed the warming and melting
properties of 'bright' effluences are also shared by the 'radiant' effluences of
eros (&e&p~civeTl [Plato Ph:lt:drus 250d]. &KTTlK&l [Plutarch .~(or:lJi:l 5.ï.681b]).
These properties characterize eros in poetry as weil: we need only recall that
in Alcman desire 'warms the heart'
(K~iav
ialV&l 59a PMG). and its glance
'is more melting than Sleep or Death' (TaK&PWT&pa o' Unvw Kal oavaTW 3
PMG). Further, the dazzling effect of bright objects goes along wlth a flash
that reminds one of lightning (oiov cin ciOTpanTl<: Tinl. 68a). and on the other
hand the lover receives effluences of desire when he sees the beloved's face
'flash' (ciOTpàmouoa Phdr. 250d). Effluences of deslre. then. and effluences
of brightness share much in common. The analogy may be completed by
•
considering that the mysterious 'tear' (oàKpuov Tim. 68a) that accompames
perception of brightness corresponds excellently to the 'drops of longlng' that
Eros is said to pour on the eyes of the lover CEpwc: Cl KaT'
~~aTWv OTa~wv
nOElov Eur. Hipp.525-526).
Il goes without saying that there are differences as weil. Effluences of
brightness are "physical", while effluences of eros are in a sense
"transcendent". When Plato says that emanations of brightness are
composed of fire that melts the passages and warms the interior of the eyes,
he intends to offer a 'reasonably likely account' (&Tl1&lKÎ1 ~Clyov Tim. 67d) of
what really happens when we perceive brightness. Both the fire that affects
the eye, and the sensations it produces are materially 'real'. On the other
131
hand, when he says, in the
Pha~drus,
that the
love~
perceives 'radiance' in
the beloved, and that this perception is followed by a warm effluence which
enters through the eyes warming and melting the lover's entire being, it is
obvious that, at least in part, he is speaking metaphorically, Although the
warm effluences affect the eye, the warmth produced seems to be
experienced more by the soul than by the body, Accordingly we woula place
the radiance of beauty and the effluences of desire on an ontalogical plane
somewhere between the physical and the spirituaf. The fact remains,
•
however, that both physical beauty and bright objects are characterized by
À<lIlnpOTl1<;, and the effluences that explain the effects of both these kinds of
luminosity bear strong resemblance in their features.
To fil 1 in the details of the resemblances and differences between
effluences of physical À<lIlnpOTTJ<; and of radiant beauty would be a project
both difficult and delicate. But perhaps even the rough and rudimentary work
done here suggests the possibility that when Plato was developing his
concept of effluences of desire coming from the À<lIlnpOTl1<; of the beloved, he
was presupposing a physiology of physical À<lIlnpOTl1<; such as the ona he
later presented in the Timaeus. This, in tum, would perhaps suggest that
when the lover beholds the radiance of the beloved, he is affected by thin
and swift streams of a special yèvoc; of tire (to use one of Plato's own terms),
whose ontological status would place it somewhere between the physical and
the spiritual; it would be understood, that is, as a kind of 'Iuminous essence'
(nv&Ü\JaTOC; aùVi\, to use a wonderful expression of Plutarch [Mor. 5.7.681a]).
Such an interpretation of effluences of beauty would be very much in
harmony with the representation of desire in several passages tram later
Greek poetry. It would help explain for instance why Asclepiades describes
the swift f1ight of Aphrodite's arrows as a flash of lightning that strikes the eye
(KUnpt~ lilKù ~Àoc;
ÏI1&pov àa-rpâltToooa KaT' ~aTOC; Asclepiades 20 HE). It
~ On the, pertlaps deliberate, confusion of the physical and the spiritual in Socrates' account
of desire in the Phaedrus, see Ferrari 1987.154 and following.
132
would also be perfectly in accordance with a passage from the Pa/atine
Anth%gy, in whieh Eros 'turned the lover to behold desirable beauty by
making a fiame manifest' (cpÀoyo 0' oio Tlpocpaivwv , , , àm:C7TpEmCI KàÀÀCX;
cpaCTtav iociv AP 84), And finally, it would provide us with some much needed
insight on the mysterious 'Iittle toreh of Aphrodite' in another poem from the
same collection:
•
où Il' &Tpwaev -Epwc; Téll;olC;, où ÀOIlTlào' àvàljKlc;
<il<; Tlàpcx;, oi8oll&VOV EliiKev ÜTta KapOlo'
aUyKWI.l0V 0& Tloeolcn ql&pwv KÙTlplocx;'llupocpeyy&c;
<paviov, àKpov ClloiC; ÔIlllocn Ttùp &I3OÀev.
&K 0& Ile <PèYYoc; &TIl~e' Ta 0& I3paxù <pavlov Wcper}
Ttùp Mi'lC; Tfi 'Ilfi KOlollevov KapOl«;!. (AP 83)
Eros did not wound me with his arrows, nor by lighting his torch
as before, and plaeing it to blaze under my heart;
but by bringing the companion of the Longings in their revels,
Aphrodite's scented little torch, he struck my eyes with the tip
of its fiame. The fiame has completely consumed me, and the
little torch proved to be a fire of the soul, burning in my heart.
Notice especially how the poet's masterful use of praeteritio and enjambment
brings the unbelievable 'scented Iittle torch' to conspieuous prominence at
•
the beginning of the fourth line. Our discussion above makes it quite elear
that the origin of this thin and swift fiame, whose tip mereilessly strikes this
lovers eyes and proceeds utterly to melt the pauvre vieux, is to be found in
the luminosily of the beloved.
This passage, if any, most strengthens our confidence that we were on
the right track when we interpreted the 'erolie effluences' as a special kind of
fire kindled by the luminosily of beauty. Therefore, if the argument presented
here carries any force,
we have indicated the Iink between desire and
luminosily trom yet a different route.
133
Appendix III
THE WORD MONAPXO!
ln this space we shall discuss another term applying to rulers,
lJovapxcx;, a word which first appeared in the early Archaic age at about the
same time as the word Tûpavvoc;, with which it is closely associated. This
statement, of course, on the close connection in meaning between 'monarch'
and 'tyran!' in the Greek context and in the Archaic age, requires some
•
qualification. For by Aristolle's time 'monarch' was a completely neutral term
applying to single rulers, with no impliCA:ltlons as to whether such rulers
obtained power constitutionally or unconstitutionally, whether they were just
or unjust, cruel or benevolent. Indeed in Aristolle the connection between
'monarchy' and 'tyranny' is that lyranny is a corrupt form of monarchy:
'lyranny is a perversion of kingship; both are monarchies but there is great
difference between them' (llapSKI3aOlc; ~& l3aOlÀ&iac; IJ&V TllpQvviC;' CÏlJcpw yàp
lJovapXiQl ~lacpi:poucn ~& llÀ&lo-rOV [Eth. Nic. 8.10.2
=1160b)).
This however was notthe case when the word 'monarch' first appeared
some time in the seventh or sixth century. We should keep in mind that this
word is never found in Homer or in Hesiod, both of whom had many words for
•
'single ruler' (ëtva~. KoipaVcx;, l3aOlÀ&lK;, etc. J. It seems then that this new word
for ruler entered the l'3nguage in order to cater to a new concept, one that
could not be properly expressed by the Homeric words listed above.
By the time that the word lJovapXOC: first appeared, the Greek cities had
outgrown Homeric-slyle kingship, and in most cases such kingship had been
replaced by oligarchie governments. At this point 'command' or 'office' (àpxilJ
was no longer the privilege of one person, but was distributed among several
individuals. The institution of several àpxai is weil recorded in the case of
Athens. Professor J. P. Vernant notes':
, Vernant 1982.41-42.
134
Once the notion of arche, command, had been severed from
basileia. it became independent and determined the province of a
strictly political reality. Elected first for a period of ten years, the
archons were later replaced every year. The election system, even
though it kept or borrowed some features of a religious
proceeding, implied a new conception of power: arche was
delegated every year by a human decision, through a choice that
presupposed confrontation and discussion. This stricter
delimitation of political power, which took the form of civic Office,
was complemented by basileia, which was now relegated to a
specifically religious sphere.
•
Vemant's remarks apply also, with modifications, to Greek cities other than
Athens. Indeed we know that several early tyrants were first elected to the
office of po/emarchon in their respective cities, and took advantage of the
power and prestige of this position to usurp power in the state
2
•
ln such a system of govemment as Vemant describes, the only way to
establish single rule would be to concentrate ail archai into the hands of one
person (hence llovapXCX;); and this couId be done only in defiance of the
constitution and, expectedly, by force. If then llovapXCX; originally applied to
persons who obtained single power in the state by unconstitutional means
and under violent circumstances, then the word llovapXCX; originally covered
•
pretty much the same ground as the word TUpaVVCX;. In what follows we shall
attempt to substantiate this view.
Professor A. Ferrill, a scholar who weil understands the negative
connotations of the word 'tyrant' in the Greek context, convincingly argues
that in Herodotus the word llovapXCX; is nothing but a neutral terrn for 'ruler,3.
Vet it is in Herodotus that we catch a glimpse of the original meaning of the
ward. The passage that follows is
part of Darius' speech in favour of
monarchy in the famous Persian debate on the various constitutions:
2
3
For instance Cypselus.
FerriIl1978.397.
see White 1955.6.
135
tv oi: oÀlyapxill TloÀÀolC71 ap&Ti]v trnoKéoUOl te; TO KOIVèlv &xe&a iOla
iO')(upa <pIÀé&1 cyyiyv&oear aÙTèle; yàp &KaOTOe; !30UÀ0I.l&VOe;
KOPUcpalOC:; &Tval YVWI.lIlOl T& VIKàv ce; &xe&a l.l&yaÀa aÀÀf)ÀOIOl
arnKvi:ovTal. cl; WV OTaOI&e; cyyiYVOVTal, CK oi: TWV OTaoiwv <pOVOe;,
CK 0& TOÙ <pOVOU aTlé!311 ée; l.loUVapxll1v . , , (Herodotus 3.81-82)
ln an oligarchy many people are competing for public distinction,
and this usually leads to personal hatreds; For each of them wants
to be preeminent and to have his own motions prevail. and they
lead themselves into great hatreds out of which civil strife comes
about, and out of civil strife bloodshed. and out of bloodshed the
result is single rule.
•
Darius' speech follows that of Megabyzus who argued against monarchy and
in favour of oligarchy. Throughout his speech Darius' interlocutor uses the
word TûpaVVOe; when referring to single rule. Darius, who favours single rule,
is very careful to use l.lélVapXOC:;, which, at least at the time that Herodotus
was writing, did not carry any odium. He argues that oligarchies are of their
nature unstable. Intense competition of several individuals for preeminence
deterministically leads to civil strife and murders, until eventually one man
comes out of the power struggle victorious and establishes 'monarchy'. This
being the case, one wauld do beller to accept the rule of a monarch in the
first place, and avoid the painful stages of civil strife and bloodshed.
It has long been recognized that the Persian debate never actua!ly took
•
place, and that the arguments presented there reflect Greek political
thinking
4
•
Indeed Darius' argument had long been used in Greek political
poetry, not to praise monarchy, but indeed to wam the nobles that their
excessively intense competition for prestige could lead the city to the
calamity of 'monarchy'. Such writers use llovapXOC:; in the same sense as
TUpaVVOC:;, and with the same negative connotations.
Our view would probably find support in the work of Alcaeus, where the
ward appears for the first time, if only the poem in which
we encounter the
ward 'monarch' were beller preserved. We find it in the badly damaged
4
see Ferri1l1978.393 and references.
136
seventh stanza. The poem begins with the words 'This wave comes in turn
like the previous one, and it will give us much trouble to baie out once it
enters the ship's .. .' (TOO' aÙT/: Kù~a TW npOT/:pw ... / CHCIXCI, napc~cl o' à~~l
nèvov nèÀuv / àVTÀT1V, i:ni KC vooe;
È~l3a
... Alcaeus 6 LP 1-3). It has long been
recognized that this poem is a political allegory. The ship is a metaphor for
the state and the storm represents civil strife
S
Ali we can say, lhen, with
some confidence is that in this poem we have some kind of movement from
civil strife to 'monarchy'. It does not matter; the same movement is present in
•
clearer form in Theognis who fears that the hubris of the nobles will lead the
city to dreadful calamities, including 'civil strife, intestine killings of men, and
monarchs. May the city never adopt these things!' (CHomCe; TC Ka!
i:~<pUÀOI
<pOVOI àvop6lv ~oUVapXOI TC' n6ÀCl ~tinoTC Tfioc cioOl Theognis 51_52)6. This
passage, 1think clearly shows how a 'monarch' arises in the city. It is evident
that Theognis uses ~6vapXCX: here with the same meaning and colour that he
gives TÙpaVVCX: elsewhere. For him, a ~6vapXCX: is as abhorrent as murder.
The negative connotation of ~6vapXCX: is even more evident in a poem
by Solon on the same topic. Here we learn that 'the people through their
foolishness become enslaved to a monarch' (i:C; oi:
~ovàpxou oii~cx:
àlOpcin
OOUÀOOÙVT1V Èncacv Solon 9W 3-4( Subjection to a 'monarch' is tantamount
•
to slavery. This last example most clearly shows the equivalence of
~6vapXCX:,
in its earliest appearances, and TIJpaVVoc;. For it is tyranny that is
most often desribed as enslavement. A striking passage from Euripides most
readily comes to mind. The tyrant Lycus reminds the old men of the chorus
that 'you are now slaves to my tyranny' (OOÙÀOI ycywn:c; Tiic;
i:~iie;
Tupavviè5oc;
On the allegory of the 'Ship of State' in Alcaeus, see Gentili 1988.197-215.
On this passage, see Nagy 1985.42-44.
7 These Unes are quote<! by Diodorus of Sicily (9.20.2). The historian presents them as an
'oracle' (XP1'lC'\.l0c;) in which SOlon prophesizes the rise of the tyrant Peisistratus. On this, see
Nagy 1985.45.
5
6
137
Eur.
Hr:r:JcJ~
251). And a host of passages from Herodotus establish the
same connection between tyranny and enslavement
B
.
Let us close our discussion with consideration of another quite
remarkable passage which illustrates the negative connotation of the word
~ovapxoc;.
It comes from an oracle, quoted by Herodotus, which predicts the
rise of Cypselus in Corinth. Though modern scholars believe that this oracle
was fabricated after Cypselus came to power, it is generally accepted that it
dates from the Archaic age
•
9
:
A<iI3<5a KUCl, TC!;Cl <5' OÀOOlTPOXOV' cv <5i: ncaCLTOl
<iv<5p<ial ~ouv<ipxolal, <5lKalwaCl <5i: KoplVeOV. (Herodotus 5.92.2)
Labda carries a child, and she will give birth to a rolling stone
that will fall on the monarchs and bring justice to Corinth.
The 'monarchs' in question are the Bacchiads, a powerful clan who married
only amongst themselves, and who jealously held exclusive and oppressive
rule in Corinth before Cypselus came to power'o. Here the word 'monarch' in
the plural applies to an aristocracy, and not to a group of single rulers; the
sense here is 'exclusive rule' and the words imply that such rule was
considered unjust" .
•
B Ferrill 1978.395 Iisls the following passages: 1.62; 3.143; 4.137; 5.55.65.92; 6.5.22.123;
8.142.
9 On the date ofthis oracle. see Partie and WonneIl1956.VoI1.116-117.
'0 On the Bacchiadae. see 00511972.10 and following.
" On this passage. Professor J. F. McGlew notes: 'In the political language of alChaic
Greeee. monarchoi are rulers who arrogate powers and privileges that belong to ail aristoi
(the nobility) or possibly to the entire community· (McGlew 1993.65-66).
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adkins, A. W. H. 1960. Mait :md Rt'Sponsibility. Oxford.
Adkins, A. W. H. 1972. Mor:l1 \ ':llut'S :md Politic:l1 Bt'h.1I'iour in A.ncie:nr
Gre:e:ce:. New York.
Allen, T. W., W. R. Halliday, and E. E. Sikes, eds. 1936. The: Home:ric
Hymns. 2nd ed. Oxford.
Andrewes, A. 1956. The: Gre:e:k Tyr:mrs. London.
•
Argyriou, A. 1986. LJEKAEfTTA KBAIENA nA TON IEiIJEPH [= Se:ve:nte:e:n Srudic:s
on Se:fe:ris]. Athens.
Arrowsmith, W. 1973. "Aristophanes' Birds: The Fantasy Politics of Eros."
Arion N.S.1.119-167.
Athanassakis, A., ed. 1970. The: Home:ric Hymns. Baltimore.
Benveniste, E. 1973. Indo-Europc:an LJnguage: and Socit'c,v. Translated by E.
Palmer. London.
Bergk, T., ed. 1882. Poerae L.vrici Graeci. Leipzig.
Bemadete, S. 1969. Herodotean Inquiries. The Hague.
Blumenberg, H. 1993. "Light as a Mt:taphor for Truth: At the Preliminary
•
Stage of Philosophical Concept Formation." ln Modernir.v and rhe
Hegemon.v of Vision, edited by D. M. Levin, 30-62. Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Boersma, J. S. 1970. Arhenian Building Polic,v from 561 Il ro -1115 -1 B.C.
Gronigen.
Bulman, P. 1992. Phthonos In Pindar. University of Califomia Publications:
Classical Studies, Volume 35. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Bundy, E. L. 1986. Studia Pindarica. (First published in 1962 as Volume 18,
nos. 1 and 2, of the University of Califomia Publications in Classical
Philology.) Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Bumet, J. 1902-1906. Platonis Opera. 6 vols. Oxford.
139
Burnett, A. P. 1983. Three Archaic Poets: Arcilochus. Alcaeus. Sappho.
London.
Burnett, A. P. 1985. The Art of Bacch.vlides. Cambridge, Mass.
Campbell, D. A., ed. with transI. 1992. Greek Lyric IV: Bacchylides. Corinna.
and Others. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Campbell, DA, ed. 1967. Greek Lyric Poet.y. Bristol.
Carson, A. 1984. "The Burners: A Reading of Bacchylides' Third Epinician
Ode." Phoenix 38.111-119.
•
Carson, A. 1986. Eros The Birrersweet. An Essav. Princeton.
Carson, A. 1984. "How Bad a Poem is Semonides 1W?" ln Greek Poetryand
Philosophy: Srudies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, edited by D. E.
Gerber, 59-72. Chico, California.
Carson, A. 1990. "Putting Her in Her Place: Woman, Dirt, and Desire." ln
Before Sexuality: The Construction of the Erotic Experience in Ancienr
Greeee, edited by D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler, and F. 1. Zeitlin, 135170. Princeton.
Cartledge, P. 1993. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Othets. Oxford.
Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque. Paris.
Clay, J. S. 1986. "Archilochus and Gyges." Quaderni Urbinati di Culcura
•
CIassica 24: 7-17.
Clement, P. A., and H. B. Hoffleit, eds. with trans. 1969. Plutarch's Moralia
VIII:
~d,...(;o~c.
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Connor, W. R. 1987. "Tribes, Festivals, and Processions: Civic Ceremony
and Political Manipulation in Ancient Greece." Journal of Hellenic
Srudies 107: 40-50.
Connor, W. R. 1977. ''Tyrannis Polis." ln Ancient and Modern: Essays in
Honor of Gerald F. EIse, edited by J. D' Arms and J. Eadie, 95-109.
Ann Arbor.
Cape, E. M., ed. 1877. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Vol. 2. Cambridge.
140
Crawford, M., and D. Whitehead 1983. An-haie and C/assÎl"al Gnxee: A
Seleccion of Ancienr Sources in Translacion. Cambridge.
Cunliffe, R J. 1963. A Lexicon of cho' HomaÎC Diakcc. 2nd ed. Norman and
London.
Dallas, Y., ed. 1993. APXA/OI Il YP/KOI TOMOI A. IAMBorPAI1JOI. Athens.
Detienne, M. 1977. The Gardens of Adonis. Translated by J. Lloyd. Sussex,
England.
Dodds, E. R, ed. 1960. Euripides: Bacchae. 2nd ed. Oxford.
•
Dover, K. J. 1990. Ariscophanic Comedy Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Drews, R 1972. "The First Tyrants in Greece." Hisrori.1 21: 129-144.
Easterling, P. E., ed. 1982. Sophocles: Trachiniae. Cambridge.
Evelyn-White, H. G., ed. with trans. 1914. Hesiod. chO' Homeric Hymns. :md
Homerica. Loeb Classical library. Cambridge, Mass.
Fagles, R trans. 1976. Bacch.vlides: Complece PoO'ms. With a foreword by Sir
M. Bowra, introduction and notes by A. M. Parry. Westport, Connecticut.
Farenga, V. 1985. "La tirannide greca e la strategia numismatica." ln Mondo
Classico: Percorsi Possibil i. Ravenna.
Ferrari, G. R F. 1987. Liscening to che Cicad3S: A Study of PI:llos PhaO'drus.
•
Cambridge.
Ferrill, A. 1978. "Herodotus on Tyranny." Hiscoria 27: 385-398.
Flory, S. 1987. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit.
Foerster, R 1963. Libanii Opera. Vol. VI: Dedamaciones XIII - XXx.
Leipzig.
Fox, R l. 1973. Alexander the Greac. London and New York.
Fowler, R l. 1987. The Narure of Early Greek Lyric. Toronto
Frankel, H. 1975. EarJ.v Greek Pœtry and Pholosophy Trans. M. Hadas and
J. Willis. Oxford.
Gentili, B. 1988. Poetry and ics Public in Ancknr Greecr:: From Homer ro the
Fifth Cenrury. Trans. A. T. Cole. Baltimore.
141
Gerber, D. E., ed. 1970. Euterpe:: An Anthology of EarI.v Greek L.vric.
Elegaic. and lambic Poetry. Amsterdam.
Gerber, D. E. 1984. "Semonides Fr. 1 West: A Commentary." ln Greek Poetry
and Philosophy. Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, edited by D.
E. Gerber, 125-135. Chico, California.
Gernet, L. 1981. T!le Anthropology of Ancient Greece. Translated by J.
Hamilton and B. Nagy. Baltimore and London.
Godley, AD., ed. with trans. 1920-1925. Herodorus. 4 vols. Loeb Cassical
•
Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Goff, B. E. 1990. The Noose of Words: Readings of Desire. Violence. and
Language in Euripides' Hippolyrus. Cambridge.
Goldhill, S. 1990. "The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology." ln Nothing to Do
with Dion.vsos·) Athenian Drama in its Social Context, edited by J. J.
Winkler and F. 1. Zeitlin, 97-129. Princeton.
Goldhill, S. 1991. The Poet's Voice: Essa.vs on Poetics and Greek Literature.
Cambridge
Gomme, A
w.,
A
Andrewes, and K
J. Dover. 1970. A Historical
Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 2. Oxford.
Gow, A. S. F., and D. Page, ads. 1965. Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols.
•
Cambridge.
Grimaldi, W. W. A, ad. 1988. Aristotle. Rhetoric II: A Commentary. New
York.
Gronigen, B. A van 1960. Pindare au Banquet. Leiden.
Gulick, C. B., ad. with trans. 1927-1941. Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists. 7
vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Guthrie, W. K C. 1971. The Sophists. Cambridge.
Hamilton, J. R. 1974. Alexander the Great. Pittsburgh, Pa.
Hartog. F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodorus: The Reprsentation of the Other
in the Writing of History. Translated by Janet Lloyd. Berkeley.
142
Hegyi, D. 1965. "Notes on the Origin of Greek Tyrannis."
.-\("C.1
Anciqu:/ 13.
303-317.
Heinrichs, A. 1984. "Loss of Self, Suf:"!ring, Violence: The Modern View of
Dionysus from Nietzsche to Girard: H:lT\':lrd Scudit'S in C1:L.',;i<":11
Philology 88: 205-240.
Jacobi, F., ed. 1923-58. Die Fr:lgmence der griechi,;chen Hi,;corika. Berlin
and Leiden.
Jebb, R. C. 1905. B:lcchylides-: The Poem,; :lnd Fr:lgmt'nt,;. Cambridge.
•
Jebb, R. C. 1883-1896. Sophocles-. 7 vols. Reprint 1962. Amsterdam.
Jones, H. S. 1900. Thuc.vdidis Hiscori:le. 2 vols. Oxford.
Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. 1983. Tht' Prt,:,ocr:/cic
PhiIosophers. Cambridge.
Knox, B. M. W. 1957. Oedipus:lc Thebt':'. New Haven
Knox, P. E. 1984. "Sappho fr. 31 LP and Catullus 51: A Suggestion."
Quaderni Urbinaci di CulCur:l CIassic:l17:97-102.
Kurke, L. 1993. "The Economy of Kudos." ln Culrur:ll Poecics in Ancient
Greece: Cult. Performance. Polities, edited by C. Doughterty and L.
Kurke, 131-163. Cambridge.
•
Kurke, L. 1991. The Traffie in Praise: Pindar and the Poeties of Social
Eeonomy. Ithaca and London.
Labarbe, J. 1971. "L'apparition de la notion de tyrannie dans la Grèce
archaïque." L 'all/iquité dassiquf! 40: 471-504.
Larsen, J. A, O. 1962. "Freedom and its Obstacles in Ancient Greece."
Classieal PhiIolog.v 57: 230-234.
Levin, D. M., ed. 1993. Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision. Berkeley
and Los Angeles.
Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott, eds. 1968. A Gr.:ek-English Lexieon. 9th ed.,
revised by H, Stuart Jones. Oxford.
Lloyd-Jones, H. 1975. Females of the Species: Semonides on Women. London.
143
Lobel, E., and D. L. Page, eds. 1955. Pocearum Lcsbiorum Fragmenca.
Oxford.
Mac Dowell, D. M., ed. 1982. Gorgias: Encomium of Helen. Bristol.
McGlew, J. F. 1993. Tyranny and Policica/ Cu/cure in Ancienc Greeee.
Ithaca, N.Y.
Miller, A. M. 1981. "Pindar, Archilochus, and Hieron in P. 2.52-56."
Transaclions of lhe American Phi/%gica/ Associacion 111: 135-143.
Morris, 1. 1986. "Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece." Man 21 :1-17.
•
Murray, A. T., ed. with trans. 1924-1925. Homer: The lIiad. 2 vols. Loeb
Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Murray, A. T., ed. with trans. 1995. Homer: The Odyssey. Books
!r~.
Revised by G. E. Dimock. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.
Murray, G. 1937. Aeschyli Seplem Quae Supersunt Tragoediae. Oxford.
Murray, G. 1913-1915. Euripidis Fabu/ae. 3 vols. Oxford.
Murray, O. 1993. Early Greeee. 2nd ed. London.
Nagy, G. 1990. Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Pasco
Baltimore.
Nagy, G. 1983. "Poet and Tyrant: Theognidea 39-52, 1081-1082b." CIassica/
•
Anciquicy 2: 82-91.
Nagy, G. 1985. "Theognis and Megara: A Poet's Vision of His City." ln
Theognis and Megara: Poelry and che Polis, edited by T. J. Figuera and
G. Nagy, 22-81. Baltimore.
Nauck, A., ed. 1889. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenca. Leipzig
Nussbaum, M. C. 1986 The FragiJjcy of Goodness. Luck and Ethics in Greek
Traged.v and Philosophy. Cambridge.
Onians, R. B. 1951. The Origins of European Thought abouc che Body. che
Mind. che Sou/. che Wor/d. Time. and Fate. Cambridge.
Oost, S. 1. 1972. "Cypselus the Bacchiad." C/assica/ Phil%~~gy 67: 10-30.
Otto, W. F. 1965. Dionysus. M.vth and Cu/c. Bloomington.
144
Page, D. L., ed. 1981. Furrher Greek Epigr:uns. Cambridge.
Page, D. L., ed. 1962. Poecae Mdici Graeci. Oxford.
Page, D. L. 1955. Sappho and :\lc:aeus. Oxford.
Parke, H. P., and D. E. W. Wormell. 1956. The Ddphic Oracle. 2 vols
Oxford.
Paton, W. R., ed. with trans. 1916-1926. The Greek AlIchology. 5 vols.
London and New York.
Perrin, B., ed. with trans. 1916. Plucarch"s Li"tos IV: A.lc:ibiadc:s and
•
Coriolanus. L.vsander and Sulla. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
Mass.
Rosenmeyer, T. G. 1951. "Eros - Erotes." Phoenix 5: 11-22.
Segal, C. 1982. Dion.vsiac Poecics and Euripidc:s' Bacchae. Princeton.
Segal, C. 1977. "Philoetetes and the Imperishable Piety" Hermc:s 105:133158.
Segal, C. 1995. "Spectator and Listener." ln The Greeks, edited by J P
Vernant, 184-217. Chicago and London.
Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Arc and culc under che Tvrancs in Achens. Mainz.
Slater, W. J. 1969. Lexicon co Pindar. Berlin.
Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.
•
Snell, B. 1953. The Discover.v oi che Mind. Translated by T. G. Rosenmeyer.
NewHaven.
Snell, B., and H. Maehler, eds. 1971. Bacchylidc:s. Leipzig.
Snell, B., and H. Maehler, eds. 1975. Pindarus: Fragmenta. Leipzig.
Snell, B., and H. Maehler, eds. 1987. Pindarus: Epinicia. Leipzig.
Snodgrass, A. 1980, Archaic Gr=:e: The Age of Experiment. Berkeley and
Los Angeles.
Sommerstein, A. H., ad. 1987. Ariscophanes' Birds. Warminster.
Stanford, W, B. 1983. Greek Tragedyand the Emotions. London and Boston.
145
Stock, R. D. 1989. The Flutr:s of Dion.vsus: Daemonic Enthrallment in
Literature. Lincoln.
Strauss, Leo 1948. On T.vranny. New York.
Ure, P. N. 1922. The Origin of T.vrann.v. Cambridge.
Verdenius, W. J. 1962. "ASPOI." Mnemos.vne 15:392-393.
Verdenius, W. J. 1987. Commentarir:s on Pindar I. Mnemosyne Suppl. 97.
Leiden.
Vernant, J. P. 1990. "One ... Two ... Three: Eros." ln Bt:fore Sexualit.v: The
•
Construction of the Erotic Experience in Ancient Greeee, edited by D.
M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler, and F. 1. Zeitlin, 465-478. Princeton.
Vernant, J. P. 1982. The Origins of Greek Thought. TranslatOO by J. Lloyd.
Ithaca, N. Y.
Vernant, J. P., ed. 1995. The Greeks. Chicago and London.
Vernant, J. P., and P. Vidal-Naquet 1988. M.vth and Traged.v in Ancient
Greeee. Translated by J. Lloyd. New York.
Walbank, F. W. 1957-1979. A Historical Commentar.v on Polybius. 3 vols.
Oxford.
Walcot, P. 1978. Envy and the Greeks. Warminster.
•
Wallace, R. 1983. "The Date of Solon's Reforms." American Journal Of
Ancient History 8: 81-95.
Walton, F. R., and R. M. Geer, eds. with trans. 1967. Diodorus of Sici/y XII:
Fragments of Books XXXIII-XL. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
Mass.
Wees, H. van 1992. Status Warriors: War, Violence. and Society in Homer
and History. Amsterdam.
West, M. L., 00.1978. Hr:siod. Works and Days. Oxford.
West, M. L., ed. 1971. Iambi et Elegi Graeci. 2 Vols. Oxford.
White, M. 1955. "Greek Tyranny" Phoenix 9: 1-18.
146
Winkler, J. J., and F. 1. Zeitlin 1990. Nothing to Do
with Dion.vsos?
Athenian Drama in its Social Conrext. Princeton.
Woodbury, L. 1968. "Pindar and the Mercenary Mus'" Isthmian 2.1-13."
Transactions of the American Philologic:l1 Association 99: 527-542.
Woodcock, G. 1989. The Marvellous
CenlUr~
Archaic Man and the
Awakening of Reason. Markham. Ont.
Young, O. C. 1968. Three Odes Of Pindar: A Literar.v SlUd.v of P.vthian
Pythian J. and 01.vmpian
7'.
Il.
Leiden.
•
:
•