Cypselus and Orthagoras, the significance of tribal distinctions between Dorian and pre-Dorian should not be over-estimated in these communities. This point was made by S. Mazzarino 45 , as did Edouard Will 46 and G. Zoemer 47 , Gabrielle Bockisch laid particular stress on the social aspect of the Sicyon tyranny The struggle for power between different groups of aristocrats seems also to have played a part in the emergence of tyranny.
This was particularly marked when Peisistratus established his tyranny in Athens. There were three rival groups «parties», staseis in Attica in the sixties of the sixth century ; these were the inhabitants of the plain of Attica pedion , who were called pediakoi or pedieis, the people of the coastal region paralia , called paralioi or paraloi, and the people of the mountains, know as diakrioi or hyperakrioi.
The earliest account of these staseis is that of Herodotus 1, 59 , and they are also mentioned by Aristotle Athenian Constitution 13, 4 and Plutarch Solon This account agrees with Aristotle's view of the political trends in the Greek cities in his own day, as he set it out his Politics ff.
The usual interpretation given by modern scholars was that the pediakoi were aristocratic landowners, the paralioi merchants and craftsmen, and the diakrioi were most frequently taken to be the small peasants and shepherds. I took this view myself in my book on the early Greek tyranny At the same time, however, I rejected the suggestion by Percy N.
Ure 50 , that the diakrioi should be identified with the miners in the silver mines of Laureion in southeast Attica. I was also critical of Ure's description of the tyrants as «merchant princes» as well as his analogies between development in the cities of archaic Greece and the situation in Renaissance Florence or Tudor England I must therefore protest when the classical archaeologist Ernst Kluwe imputes to me a «positive evaluation» of Ure's conception In a short article on the early tyranny published in German in 53 , to which Kluwe refers, I was explicit in my rejection of Ure's modernistic analogies.
What I did appreciate, and what I still see as Ure's valuable contribution to the discussion of the tyranny, was the attention he paid to social and economic conditions in early Greece, making use of evidence provided by archaeological exploration. Antony Andrewes brought a new point of view to the interpretation. He pointed out that «the most natural explanation of the local names is that the nucleus of each party was the local following of its leader.
Plain and coast were groups centred in the neighbourhood of Athens, already in existence before Peisistratus' activity began» Discussing the actions of Peisistratus he stressed this leader's support for the small peasants, and added that the tyranny contributed to the prosperity of Athens and that Peisistratus «had suppressed the free play of the aristocratic faction» I find that Raphael Sealey went too far in his article, when he saw these local groups as the only factor in the political development of Athens in the sixth century, and rejected the social aspect of this historical process Hopper pointed out that in Aristotle the political aspect of the «Parties» predominated, not the regional ; he stressed the individual character of the struggle for power in sixth century Athens and suggested that this division into three was a late construction David M.
Lewis, on the other hand, attempted to link the interests of individual aristocrats to specific regions Zelyin also with the significance of regional groups in archaic Athens. Unlike Raphael Sealey he paid considerable attention to the economic changes and social tensions in the Athens of the day One cannot however agree with his view that the «Wappenmunzen», corresponding to similar symbols on some Attic vases, testify to «constant fighting between the noble families» Zelyin based his opinion on the dating and interpretation of Athenian coins proposed by Charles T.
Seltman Krasy published his pioneering study 62 , the great majority of scholars accept a considerably later date for these Athenian coins As RJ. Hopper, put it the coins were probably minted at the beginning of the reign of Peisistratus, and there is no connection with the aristocratic famines in Athens Ellis and G.
Stan ton, believe the regional principle to be decisive, but suggest at the same time that the three «parties Ernst Kluwe rightly objected to the suggestion by D. Kienast 67 that there was a connection between the four Ionian phylae attested for Attica and the regional «parties» Kluwe also criticized my evaluation of the tyranny of Peisistratus, saying that I had dealt with the «social basis of tyranny» in an over-simplified and idealistic fashion When I wrote that Peisistratus «not only helped his own supporters, but in all possible ways furthered the economic and cultural development of Athens, its evolution in foreign relations», and that this was «also in the interests of the craftsmen, merchants and.
Antony Andrewes called the chapter of his book which dealt with the tyranny in Athens, «Peisistratus and the consolidation of Attica» and stressed that «indirectly the tyranny helped Attic prosperity by the internal and external peace it provided» Similarly Victor Ehrenberg stated in one of his last works that «Peisistratus It was during his reign that Attic black-figured vases, whether as containers for oil or wine, or as highly accomplished works of art and craftsmanship, went out all over the Greek world, and displaced the Corinthian ware» We may add that Peisistratus was certainly not acting out of altruistic motives where his fellow-citizens were concerned, but that he was naturally interested in seeing the polis he ruled over as prosperous as possible ; this in turn redounded to his credit and strengthened his political power.
In this connection I would like to mention the view taken by G. Williams 73 : «The picture that emerges of Peisistratus, then, is not a figure guided by democratic or agrarian principles, but of a factional politician influenced by family ambition In addition he was prepared to take advantage of social and economic discontent in order to advance his own family image at the expense of his rivals. Such support for the underprivileged stamps him as a popular politican At the same time I suggested that there were other motives at work besides rivality between the aristocratic families and their leaders It is quite clear from Solon's verse, which is one of the most valuable sources for knowledge of this period, that in the first half of the sixth century Athenian society was split into conservative and radical political camps which reflected the social differentiation within the population.
In his account of the three «parties», quoted above, Herodotus says explicitly 1, 59 that when the pediakoi and the paralioi were engaged in a struggle for power, Peisistratus wanted to become a tyrant and set up a stasis drawn from the hyperakrioi. He is said to have done this only as a cover for his real intention of seizing power. Evidence that besides conflicts between the aristocratic families, there was social conflict in Athens at this time, is provided by an episode probably dated - B.
We learn from Aristotle's Athenian Constitution 13, 1 - 2 that there was a long-drawn-out dispute in Athens over the appointment of an archon.
In later writers this division of the citizens into three groups occurs in other contexts, and besides the term agroikoi, geomoroi and georgoi are attested. We can hardly doubt that it was the low-born peasants who were thus designated alongside the aristocrats, the Eupatridai.
Raphael Sealey interpreted this passage, too, as proof of the geographical division of the people of Attica This view was rightly criticized by Carl Roebuck. The meaning of demiourgoi is not clear. Roebuck believes that «demiourgoi may have designated local officials, village heads, in the pre-Kleisthenian state». He agrees with the accepted view that this ten-member group was the expression of a compromise reached by the aristocrats and the rest of the citizens : «there does seem a balance in the commission of ten : 5 were Eupatridai, while the other five had a homogenous, non-Eupatrid character» Murawaka described the demiourgoi in archaic Athens as simple citizens of various trades According to Victor Ehrenberg, these two citizens who were elected to serve together with five eupatrids and three peasants, in the ten-member commission which performed the functions of the archon, were «merchants rather than artisans » In my opinion, Aristotle's account of conflict over the election of an archon shows that trouble did not cease in the community even after Solon's seisachtheia and after the creation of a timocratic constitution.
In addition to clashes between individual aristocrats and their followers social conflict seems to have come out into the open. The democratic form of governent did not spring to life all at once, like Athena from the head of Zeus, but had its roots in the long and complex process of evolution of the Athenian polis in the course of the sixth century.
The tyranny of Peisis- tratus played no little role in this process. Before he managed to get complete control of Athens, Peisistratus lived in Thrace ; in the Pangaeus mountains, famous for the mining of precious metals, he accumulated the money he needed to secure his ends. Cole suggested that it was here in the Strymon valley that Peisistratus became acquainted with the cult of Dionysus, gaining favour with the Tracian Edonians by promising to propagate the cult in Athens The chronology of the three attempts made by Peisistratus to establish a tyranny, as given by different classical authors, is confused.
Most scholars rightly adhere to the chronology based on Herodotus 5, 65 , according to. Aristotle gives a different chronology in his Athenian Constitution. So far, so familiar. There lay the trap: Power belonged to anyone who could harness the collective will of the citizens directly by appealing to their emotions rather than using evidence and facts to change their minds.
So it came about that what was in name a democracy was in practice government by the foremost man. Misleading speech is the essential element of despots, because despots need the support of the people. Terrorists are totalitarian tyrants in waiting. These different kinds of tyrannical or demagogical threats to freedom have been dealt with in different ways — and will continue to be dealt with.
Recent election results in France and the Netherlands, and the likely outcome in Germany, prove that Europeans are so far resisting the extreme reaches of populism. And Trump will not be able to exert his personal will over all branches of government — court challenges are clipping his wings.
The U. In the realm of international relations, where a firewall of sober appointees is so far hemming in Trump, deals can conceivably be reached with the dictators of Russia and China. Unlike genuine totalitarians such as Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, these autocrats have no intention of risking having their own societies, and especially their own power, going down in flames over any effort to bring about a totalitarian Utopia via world war.
But firmness and steadiness of purpose will be needed in this long-term poker game. China must be made to understand that it cannot build naval bases in international waters. They want to bring heaven to Earth and force the rest of us to submit to them as masters. Aristotle describes the characters of the two brothers:. Tyranny As happened in many other Greek states, a tyrant arose in Athens in the 6th century B.
Athenian Constitution And the greatest of all the things said of him was that he was popular and kindly in temper. For he was willing to administer everything according to the laws in all matters, never giving himself any advantage. Both the notables and the men of the people were most of them willing for him to govern, since he won over the former by his hospitality and the latter by his assistance in their private affairs and was good-natured to both. Fragment Of an inscription, about B.
Athens, Agora Museum I Broken from a large marble block inscribed with a list of archons of Athens, this piece preserves parts of the names of six archons of the 's B. The inscription also records the names of two other well-known politicians active in the late 6th century B.
0コメント