18 One must note the war of 331, led by Agis III of Sparta. For a discussion, see Cartledge and Spawforth (2002: 22–24). It was limited to Peloponnesian states, but the danger could have spread. Also note Diodoros’s comments at 17.48.5–6. Many Persian military officers who escaped from the battle of Issos continued to fight against Alexander: “some got to important cities and held them for Darius, others raised tribes and furnishing themselves with troops from them performed appropriate duties in the time under review.”
19 Priene (RO 86), Mytilene (RO 85), Ephesos (Arr. Anab. 1.17.10–12), Chios (RO 84), Erythrai (I. Erythrai 10), Zeleia (Syll.3 279). Also note Alexander’s action at Mallos (Arr. Anab. 2.5.9).
20 On the important role of punishment in a democratic polis, see Allen (2000).
21 The translation “tortured as a deterrent spectacle” (μετὰ τιμωρίας παραδειγματιζόμενον) is suggested by Walbank (1957: 266).
22 Compare what happened in nearby Methymna (Curt. 4.8.11).
23 The first part of text 3 is inscribed on the last lines of the obverse of gamma, immediately after text 2; thus its first line is line 33. The second part of text 3 constitutes the earliest lines of the right lateral of gamma; thus it begins with line 1. Text 4 continues right after text 3 on the same right lateral of gamma: thus the line numbering. And the majority of text 5 completes the rest of the right lateral of gamma: thus the line numbering. The very last lines of text 5, however, constituted the earliest lines on gamma’s reverse: thus the line numbering. Note that, in my translation, I print the Greek word dēmos (or the Aeolian damos) instead of RO’s translation “the people.”
24 Perhaps these exiles were driven out of Eresos before the Eresians passed their “law against the tyrants” (336?). Thus they might have argued that they should be affected neither by that law nor by the trial of 332.
25 This is argued by Heisserer (1980: 62–67).
26 This conclusion is based in large part on the possible meaning of ὑπέρ (“on behalf of”) (line 39). But note that the same preposition is used in text 6 (lines 18–19) referring to Alexander’s letter to the Eresians concerning the trial of the descendants of the “former tyrants.” It is, perhaps, doubtful that Alexander wrote a letter of support for those men in 324. Both Welles (1974: 14) and Magie (1950: 874n60) conclude that Antigonos initially supported the descendants of Agonippos.
27 On Lysimachos, see Lund (1992).
28 A great example of this use of publicly placed writing is found in lines 13–18 of I. Ilion 33. Meleagros, the Seleukid governor of the Hellespont satrapy, wrote to the dēmos of Ilion that Aristodikides of Assos (a “friend” of the king) had chosen to attach his newly received land to the territory of Ilion. At the end of the letter, Meleagros wrote, “You, however, would do well to vote all the usual privileges to him and to make a copy of the terms of his grant and inscribe it on a stele and place it in the sanctuary in order that you may retain securely for all time what has been granted” (trans. Burstein). For a detailed examination of the use of inscribed documents in the mediation between Hellenistic poleis and the superpower kings, see Ma (2000).
29 This text, recorded on the reverse of gamma, immediately follows text 5. Thus it begins with line 4. Note that I have maintained the Greek word damos instead of RO’s “the people.”
30 Such texts were likely inscribed on the parts of the two stones that are no longer legible. Heisserer (1980: 64) also suggests that Alexander’s order (in 334) that the tyrants be exiled and rendered subject to arrest (agogimoi) was inscribed on stone beta.
31 Note that the verb ἐντυγχάνω (found in the present tense in Antigonos’s letter, lines 2–3) can mean, in addition to “encounter” (as found in RO’s translation), “appeal to” (+ dative), as found in RC 2. Importantly, Alexander’s name is in the dative case: Ἀ̣λεξάν[δρωι] (line 2). Thus the sense could be “appeal to Alexander.” Also, there appears to be general agreement that the subject of εν]|τυγ[χ]αν[ is the Eresians: Paton, in IG XII, 2, 526 (followed by Heisserer and RO) restored the second person plural finite verb: ἐν]|τυγ[χ]άν[ετε; Tod 191 and OGIS 8 restored the plural participle in the nominative case: ἐν]|τυγ[χ]άν[οντες; Welles (RC 2) restores a participle but is noncommittal on its case and number: ἐν]|τυγ[χ]αν[οντ–16–. It is thus possible that the general sense is “your appeal to Alexander’s precedent is persuasive.” For a brief discussion of the first three lines of the reverse of stone gamma, see Heisserer (1980: 55–56).
32 Unfortunately, there are very few extant inscriptions from Eresos, and the few that do exist are not precisely (or even roughly) dated. However, the inscriptions do suggest that the dēmos was in control of the polis after 300. The following texts likely date to the Hellenistic period and give an indication that the dēmos controlled Eresos: IG XII, 2: 527, 528, 529, 530; Supplement to IG XII: 120 (before 190 BCE), 121 (3rd/2nd c. BCE), 122 (209–204 BCE). No extant text from this period indicates that the dēmos was not in control of the polis.
33 Bosworth’s comments (1980: 317). It might be relevant to note that Seleukos I and Antiochos I returned a statue of Apollo to Miletos that was taken by Darius I (Paus. 1.16.3, 8.46.3).
34 It must be stressed that the Alexander was not doctrinaire in his liberation/democratization policy. Parmenion, for example, enslaved the small Aeolic town of Gryneion (Diod. Sic. 17.7.9). But that occurred before Alexander commanded the forces in Asia Minor (see Badian [1966: 39–40]). And Thebes was a democracy when Alexander had it destroyed. But it, of course, was on the Greek mainland. Note, too, Alexander’s maltreatment of Soli (in Kilikia) during the run-up to the battle of Issos (Arr. Anab. 2.5.5–8): he put a garrison in the city and fined the citizens 200 talents (because they favored Persia) and then “granted them democracy.” As Bosworth notes (1980: ad loc.), this notorious incident demonstrates that a grant of democracy was not necessarily a grant of freedom. Arrian appears to contrast Alexander’s treatment of Soli with his subsequent treatment of Mallos (Arr. Anab. 2.5.9).
35 There surely was internal competition for control of the various poleis. The epigraphic record in several cities makes this clear. For example, Mytilene (RO 85), Erythrai (I. Erythrai 10), Chios (RO 84). Alexander’s democratization policy was unwelcomed by anti-democrats.
36 For an analysis of the laws from Eretria and Athens, see, respectively, chapters 2 and 3. Note, too, that Phanias of Eresos (a student of Aristotle, who was Alexander’s tutor) wrote a book titled τυράννων ἀναίρεσις ἐκ τιμωρίας (“the slaying of tyrants out of vengeance”) (Athen. 3.90e; 8.33a, 10.438c). Alexander clearly understood the potential power of anti-tyranny ideology.
5
The Philites Stele from Erythrai
Introduction
Alexander’s conquest of western Asia Minor marked a dramatic turning point in Erythraian politics. For the previous fifty-four consecutive years (386–332) and for seventy-two of the previous eighty years (412–394 and 386–332), oligarchs controlled that polis.1 By the end of the 330s, however, the democrats were in control. What many Erythraians likely considered to be the natural and immutable political order had been completely upended.
This chapter analyzes the Erythraian democrats’ efforts to maintain control of their polis in the face of efforts by their anti-democratic opponents to reinstate the pre-Alexander status quo. The following inscription (I. Erythrai 503), henceforth referred to as the “Philites stele,” is the starting point for the inquiry.2
Non-ΣΤΟΙΧ.
῎Εδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· Ζωίλος Χιά-
δου εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἐν τῆι ὀλιγαρχίαι τῆς εἰ-
κόνος τῆς Φιλίτου τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος
τὸν τύραννον τοῦ ἀνδριάντος ἐξεῖλον
5 τὸ ξίφος, νομίζοντες καθόλου τὴν στάσιν<
br />
καθ᾿ αὑτῶν εἶναι· ὅπως ἂν ὁ δῆμος φαίνηται
πολλὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμενος καὶ μνημο-
νεύων ἀεὶ τῶν εὐεργετῶν καὶ ζώντων
καὶ τετελευτηκότων, ἀγαθῆι τύχηι δεδόχθαι
10 τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· τοὺς ἐξεταστὰς το[ὺ]-
ς ἐνεστηκότ[α]ς ἐγδοῦναι τὸ ἔργον διαστολὴν
ποιησαμένους μετὰ τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος, καθότι
συντελεσθήσεται ὡς πρότερον εἶχεν· ὑπηρετε[ῖ]
ν δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸγ κατὰ μῆνα ταμίαν. ὅπως δὲ καθαρὸς
15 ἰ̣οῦ ἔσται ὁ ἀνδριὰς καὶ στεφανωθήσεται ἀεὶ ταῖς
νουμηνίας καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἑορταῖς, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι
τοὺς ἀγορανόμους.
Ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆ καὶ τῶι δήμωι· Ζωίλος Χιάδου
εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ ἐν τῶι πρότερον ψηφίσματι προσε-
20 τάχθη τῶι ἀγορανόμωι ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς εἰκόνος
τοῦ ἀνδριάντος τοῦ Φιλίτου, ὅπως στεφανω-
θήσεταί τε καὶ λαμπρὸς ἔσται, ὁ δὲ ἀγορανόμος
φησὶν εὶς ταῦτα πόρου δεῖσθαι, ἀγαθῆι τύχηι
δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· τὸ μὲν καθ̣᾿ ἕ-
25 τος εἰς ταῦτα διδόναι τὸ ἀνάλωμα τοὺς
[κα]τὰ μῆνα ταμίας, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι δὲ τὸν
[ἀγορα]νόμον, εἰς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸγ χρόνον οἱ ἀ[γ]-
[ορανόμο]ι πωλοῦντες τὰς ὠνὰς προστι[θέ]-
[τωσαν τὴν πο]ί̣η̣[σιν] τῶν στεφά[νων -----]
30 [-----------]τε[---------]
It was resolved by the council and the dēmos. Zoilos the son of Chiades proposed: since the members of the oligarchy took away the sword from the statue, which was a portrait of Philites the tyrannicide, thinking that the erection of the statue was a protest against themselves, and in order that it be apparent that the dēmos takes great care and remembers forever its benefactors, both living and dead, with good fortune it was resolved by the council and the dēmos: the current exetastai are to invite bids for the work, having made specification with the municipal architect whereby it shall be completed as it was previously; and the monthly treasurer is to assist these official. The clerks of the market are to take care that the statue will be free of verdigris and will be crowned always at the festivals of the first of the month and at the other festivals.
It was resolved by the council and the dēmos. Zoilos the son of Chiades proposed: since in the previous decree it was assigned to the clerk of the market to take care of the portrait, namely the statue of Philites, so that it will be crowned and will be shining, but the clerk of the market reports that funds are needed for this, with good fortune it was resolved by the council and the dēmos: for this year the monthly treasurers are to provide the expenses for this project, and the clerk of the market is to take care of it, but in the future the clerks of the market selling the contracts (are to add the making) of the crowns….
The earliest historical event alluded to in this inscription is a successful democratic coup d’état. The previous, nondemocratic regime was, apparently, some sort of “tyranny.” At any rate, after securing control of the polis, the victorious democrats erected a statue in the image of an otherwise unknown man named Philites “the tyrant killer.”3 That statue, unfortunately, has not been found. Yet several important points may be inferred about it from information provided in the decree.
First, the statue of Philites was quite likely an explicit imitation of the Athenians’ statue of Harmodios sculptured by Kritios and Nesiotes. In defense of that assertion, one should note that Philites is explicitly called a “tyrant killer” (Φιλίτου τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος τὸν τύραννον, lines 3–4). And Harmodios, of course, was known as a tyrant killer.4 Much more suggestive is the fact that the sword (ξίφος) was a very important feature of the statue of Philites—so much so that the oligarchs removed it. Now, the most recognizable feature of Kritios and Nesiotes’s statue of Harmodios was the raised right arm bearing a sword (ξίφος). In Aristophanes’s comedy Lysistrata (lines 630–35), for example, the male chorus leader, after announcing that he will carry his sword (ξίφος), humorously poses just like the statue of Harmodios to signal his readiness to combat tyranny. And, importantly, a (likely) mid-fifth-century electrum stater from Kyzikos depicts Harmodios with a sword in his raised right hand.5 Philites was thus almost certainly depicted as delivering what B. B. Shefton (1960) has called “the Harmodios blow.”6
Second, the statue of Philites was made out of bronze. It is true that the Philites stele does not state that explicitly. And it is also true that, when referring to statues, Erythraian decrees often state the material that they are made of.7 But the Philites stele does state that the statue has ἰός (14–15) that must be removed in order to make it “shiny” (λαμπρός, line 22). That almost certainly indicates that the statue was made of bronze: one would be less inclined to refer to a marble statue as “shiny”; it is difficult to imagine what the ἰός, a word that can also mean “poison,” would be on a marble statue. And one should also note that the Kritios and Nesiotes statues of Harmodios were made of bronze.8
Finally, the Erythraians almost certainly placed the statue of Philites in the agora. The best evidence in support of that assertion is that the agoranomoi—officials formally in charge of transactions that take place in the agora—were chiefly responsible for “taking care” (ἐπιμελεῖσθαι) of the portrait-statue.9 Also suggestive is the fact that there are extant decrees of the Erythraian dēmos (e.g., RO 56 lines 11–13; I. Erythrai 28 lines 51–53; IErythMcCabe 19 lines 11–12) that order a statue (εἰκών) of an honored man placed in the agora. And finally, the Athenians placed the Kritios and Nesiotes statue of Harmodios in their own agora.10
Sometime after the democrats erected the statue of Philites, oligarchs staged their own coup d’état and took control of Erythrai. Presumably shortly after their victory, the members of the new regime “took out” (ἐξεῖλον, line 4) the sword from the statue of Philites. One might wonder whether or not they simply removed the sword. Perhaps they broke it off or did some sort of damage in the process of removal: that would explain the apparent difficulty the democrats later expected to encounter in repairing the statue. The most important point, however, is that the oligarchs did not destroy the statue of Philites. Thus, during the rule of an oligarchic regime, there stood, in the agora, a statue of Philites the tyrant slayer delivering the famous “Harmodios blow”—without a sword.11
At some point after the oligarchs “took out” the sword from the statue of Philites, the democrats staged yet another coup and reestablished their democratic politeia. Soon thereafter, members of that regime—assuming that the order contained in the decree was carried out—restored the sword to the statue of Philites, cleaned the statue of verdigris, and arranged for it to be crowned at the beginning of every month and at all religious festivals. It is interesting to note here that several extant Athenian vases depict the Athenian statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton wearing wreaths. And Brunnsåker has suggested that the Athenians might have crowned both statues during the Panathenaic festival—the festival at which Harmodios and Aristogeiton assassinated Hipparchos (514). It thus certainly appears that the Erythraian democrats were, once again, foll
owing the Athenian tyrannicide model.12
Based on an analysis of the events referred to in the Philites stele and their likely historical contexts, this chapter argues that the creation and subsequent manipulation of the statue of Philites played an important role in the foundation, contestation, and ultimate securement of the democracy that was established in Erythrai in the wake of Alexander’s conquest of western Asia Minor. The defense of that thesis is rather straightforward. I first argue that both anti-democrats and pro-democrats manipulated the statue of Philites in order to affect the ability of the pro-democrats to mobilize in defense of the democracy. The important implication of that argument is that both sides considered the manipulation of the statue of Philites—that is, control of its message—to play an important role in determining whether or not there would be democracy in Erythrai. I then argue that the statue of Philites was erected and subsequently manipulated during a fifty-year period that immediately followed the establishment of democracy in Erythrai in the wake of Alexander’s conquest of western Asia Minor. The manipulation of the statue, that is, was part of a domestic struggle to determine whether or not the post-Alexander status quo would hold. And in the chapter’s final section, I argue that, after the pro-democrats repaired and provided for the repeated crowing of the statue of Philites, democracy remained the “normal” regime type in Erythrai.
Manipulation of the Statue: Why?
The comments presented in this section explain why the oligarchs and, subsequently, the democrats manipulated the statue of Philites in the wake of their respective coups. Previous interpretations have focused on the oligarchs’ manipulation.13 It will be clear, however, that the actions of both the democrats and the oligarchs must be considered in order to assess fully the statue’s significance in Erythraian politics.
THREE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE OLIGARCHS’ MANIPULATION
Death to Tyrants! Page 23
