Death to Tyrants! (34 page)

PRE-ALEXANDER POSSIBILITIES

The combination of three pieces of evidence might suggest that the events referred to in the Philites stele occurred in the mid-fifth century, while Erythrai was part of the Athenian Empire. The first piece of evidence is the famous Erythrai Decree (
ML
40), traditionally dated between the 460s and
450s.
²⁹
That decree indicates that the Athenians intervened in Erythraian affairs, almost certainly after an oligarchic coup, and (re)established a democratic regime. Significantly, the decree refers to the domestic opponents of the democracy established by the Athenians as “tyrants” (
το
[
ῖ
]
ς τυράννοις
: line 33). Second, two fragmentary inscriptions (both a part of
IG
I
³
15) suggest that, shortly after the promulgation of the aforementioned Erythrai Decree, the Athenians intervened in Erythraian political affairs once again to support the democracy there: the Erythraian pro-democrats, that is, lost control of their polis once again.
³⁰
And the third piece of evidence is the early- to mid-fifth-century Electrum stater from Kyzikos that is stamped with an image of Harmodios and Aristogeiton.
³¹
That coin is important because it suggests that the Erythraians could have known about the Athenian statue of Harmodios in the mid-fifth century, when the events referred to in the aforementioned Erythrai Decree occurred.

The evidence just presented supports a simple scenario. After the Athenians intervened in Erythrai and established democratic rule, the Erythraians erected the statue of Philites; he will have played a leading role in the struggle against the “tyrants.” In the wake of the subsequent counter coup, the oligarchs removed the sword from the statue of Philites but allowed the statue itself to stand. And, finally, after the Athenians intervened once again and reinstalled the democratic regime, the democrats repaired the statue and arranged for its regular crowning.

Far from referring to mid-fifth-century events, several points might suggest that the events referred to in the Philites stele occurred after Konon's victory over the Spartans in the famous naval battle near Knidos (394). To begin with, both the Athenians and the people of Erythrai honored Konon by erecting a statue in his likeness.
³²
The Athenians placed their statue in their
agora—the first statue of an individual placed there since those of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. According to Demosthenes (Dem. 20.68–70), the Athenians did so because they “felt that he too, in breaking up the empire of the Lakedaimonians, had ended no insignificant tyranny.” Second, it is highly likely that Erythraian pro-democrats referred to those who ruled the polis before the battle of Knidos as “tyrants”: the people of Rhodes—liberated with Konon's help shortly before the battle of Knidos—certainly did (
Hell
.
Oxy
. 10, 2 = column xi, 12–28). And finally, there is evidence for stasis in Erythrai a few years after the battle of Knidos (
RO
17).

Based on the evidence just presented, one might construct the following scenario. Before the battle of Knidos, oligarchs—called “tyrants” by the pro-democrats—controlled Erythrai. After Konon's naval victory, the emboldened pro-democrats staged a successful coup and overthrew the nondemocratic regime. Philites “the tyrant killer” struck the all-important first blow of that coup. In order to demonstrate their gratitude, the Erythraians erected, in their agora, statues of both “tyrannicides,” Konon and Philites; Konon “killed” the regional tyrant (i.e., Sparta); Philites killed the local, Erythraian tyrant.
³³
The subsequent regime changes and consequent manipulations of the statue of Philites occurred in the troubled run-up to the King's Peace.

Both pre-Alexander dates for the events referred to in the Philites stele should be rejected. The interpretations, first of all, are somewhat forced. There is no mention of tyrannicide in the fifth-century evidence, just of tyrants. And in any case it must be remembered that the Athenians, not the Erythraians, promulgated the Erythrai Decree: maybe the democrats of Erythrai did not commonly refer to their domestic enemies at that time as tyrants. And with respect to the early-fourth-century scenario, there is no
direct
evidence for tyranny—much less tyrannicide—in Erythrai whatsoever. In addition, Heisserer's commemorative text theory, the validity of which potentially justifies a pre-Alexander context, is likely false. It will be recalled that Heisserer based that theory on two points: (1) the decrees recorded in the Philites stele have an abbreviated enactment formula; (2) the decrees do not contain historical detail. One might counter both points. First, several public, democratically promulgated decrees from Erythrai contain only the abbreviated enactment formula (e.g.,
RO
8,
I. Erythrai
24, 27). Second, it is just as reasonable to conclude that a commemorative text would
include
—not exclude—historical detail concerning the tyranny and the oligarchy.
Moreover, if the text were abbreviated and commemorative one might wonder why the Erythraians chose to retain, and thus commemorate, all of the procedural matters recorded in the second decree.
³⁴

As indicated above, the following comments argue that the events referred to in the Philites stele occurred in the wake of watershed moments of the early Hellenistic period. The argument is, admittedly, circumstantial. It has to be: the only (possible) hard fact is that the stele likely was inscribed in the third century. But circumstantial cases can be compelling. And there is enough evidence, when it is viewed it its entirety, to make such a case.

ERECTION OF THE STATUE IN WAKE OF ALEXANDER'S CONQUEST

The cumulative weight of three points suggests that the Erythraians erected the statue of Philites in the wake of Alexander's conquest of Asia Minor. First, in the wake of Alexander's conquest there was a (presumably violent) democratic revolution in Erythrai.
³⁵
A decree of the
dēmos
(
I. Erythrai
21)—dated to circa 334–332—honors a certain Phanes because he “contributed money at no interest for both the expulsion (
ekpempsis
) of the soldiers and the destruction of the acropolis” (lines 7–10). That is, he provided money both to bribe occupying forces to leave the city and to destroy the fortifications on the acropolis so that such forces could not occupy the city in the future. And another inscription (
I. Erythrai
10), almost certainly contemporary with
I. Erythrai
21, carries a decree calling for the return of exiles and an amnesty. It thus appears that the people of Erythrai experienced what the citizens of other cities of Asia Minor experienced at that time: a democratic revolution followed by attempts to stabilize the new political order.
³⁶

The second point is that the Erythraians embarked upon a large-scale building project in the wake of Alexander's conquest. Most substantially, they built both a city wall and a theater,
³⁷
almost certainly a theater of Dionysos.
³⁸
It is also likely that they conducted a review of their roads and (it appears) other infrastructure at this time.
³⁹
It is thus not too much to say that, for the Erythraians, the years after Alexander's conquest constituted an era of refoundation, both for the city and for the democracy.

The third point is that Alexander heavily promoted anti-tyranny ideology both during and in the wake of his conquest of western Asia Minor. The evidence was presented in the conclusion to
chapter 4
. I recite the basics here as a simple reminder: (1) the post-Gaugamela “tyranny proclamation” (Plut.
Alex
. 34); (2) his (no doubt very publically announced) intention to return to Athens the original statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Arr.
Anab.
3.16.7–8; 7.19.2); (3) Alexander's decision, made in Egypt, to send “the tyrants to the cities from which they came, to be treated as the citizens pleased” (Arr.
Anab.
3.2.7).

Based on the previous three points, one might construct the following scenario. For decades before Alexander's conquest, democracy supporters in Erythrai were out of power; the oligarchs, although the minority, were firmly in control, likely cowing the majority into submission. Alexander's arrival in the region fundamentally changed that dynamic. Now the masses were confident enough to rise up against the oligarchs and perhaps did so in a sudden burst of collective action.
⁴⁰
Philites will have played a key role in that uprising; he might very well have been the man who “went first” by striking down a prominent oligarchic leader. The democratic revolution succeeded, but Philites died. And the
dēmos
, inspired by the anti-tyranny ideology promoted by Alexander and struck by its congruity to their present situation, considered Philites to be their own “Harmodios.” Thus they erected a bronze statue of him in the agora as an important part of their postliberation/refoundation democratic building project.

THE OLIGARCHS' MANIPULATION, POST-301

The combination of two points strongly suggests that the oligarchs “took out” the sword from the statue of Philites sometime in the wake of Lysimachos's victory at the battle Ipsos (i.e., post-301).
⁴¹
The first point is that a nondemocratic regime governed Erythrai after that battle. The existence of that regime, unfortunately, must be inferred. But the cumulative weight of the evidence makes a very strong case.

Erythrai's epigraphic record strongly suggests that anti-democrats controlled the city soon after the battle of Ipsos. There are several extant public inscriptions that date to the latter third of the fourth century when Erythrai was clearly governed democratically.
⁴²
Likewise, there are several extant public inscriptions that date to the 270s and 260s that indicate that the
dēmos
controlled the city.
⁴³
There are, however, no extant public inscriptions that are securely dated to the first two decades of the third century.
⁴⁴
Since democracies
tended to inscribe more than did nondemocratic regimes (Aischin. 3.103–5), it is reasonable to suppose that this epigraphic drought corresponds to a change to a nondemocratic regime in the years following the battle of Ipsos.
⁴⁵

Another indication of a post-Ipsos oligarchy is the fact that the democrats of Erythrai did not enjoy Lysimachos's rule. (Lysimachos took control of much of Asia Minor in the years after Ipsos.) A brief extract from a letter from King Antiochos (I or II, thus dating between 280 and 246) to the
dēmos
of Erythrai (
I. Erythrai
31) is particularly telling. The passage reads (lines 21–23), “And since Tharsynon and Pythes and Bottas [i.e., Erythrai's ambassadors to the king] declared that both in the time of Alexander and of Antigonos your city was autonomous and exempt from tribute….” The contrast between the praise of Alexander and Antigonos, two autocrats known for their support of democracy, and the conspicuous omission of Lysimachos is strong inferential evidence that Lysimachos did not support the Erythraian
dēmos
.
⁴⁶

A final indication of a post-Ipsos oligarchy is that one might reasonably conclude that Lysimmachos
would
support a nondemocratic regime in Erythrai. To begin with, Lysimachos did tolerate or even support nondemocratic regimes in Ionia: the case of Hiero, the tyrant of Priene (circa 300–297), is a good example.
⁴⁷
In addition, we know that Lysimachos had a man from Miletos placed as “general in charge of the cities of Ionia” (
στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τῶν πόλεων τῶν Ἰώνων
:
Syll
.
³
368, line 3). That might suggest that the Ionian cities suffered some restriction of their freedom. And, finally, the Erythraians successfully prevented Prepelaos, Lysimachos's general, from taking their city in 302 (Diod. Sic. 20.107.5). Lysimachos thus had reason to be angry with (and thus punish) democratic Erythrai after the battle of Ipsos.
⁴⁸

The second point in support of the thesis that the oligarchs “took out” the sword from the statue of Philites sometime after the battle Ipsos is simple but very important: there is no evidence that the democratic regime established in Erythrai in the late 330s was overthrown before the battle of Ipsos. All of the evidence, if fact, suggests that the post-Alexander status quo held until Lysimachos's famous victory. Thus, if, as seems most likely, the pro-democrats erected the statue of Philites in the late 330s, the members of a nondemocratic regime would not have had an opportunity to desecrate it until circa 300. The statue stood safely in the agora for more than one generation.

Based on the known facts and the interpretation thereof, one might construct the following scenario. The oligarchs were very upset with the democratic revolution of circa 332 and wanted to restore the pre-Alexander status quo. They took advantage of the chance afforded by Lysimachos's victory at Ipsos. There was now (post-301) a big difference, however. Earlier, the oligarchs likely faced a depoliticized, disorganized, and intimidated
dēmos
; thus they (i.e., the oligarchs) could relatively easily manipulate them. After the battle of Ipsos, they faced a politicized
dēmos
“armed” with a revolutionary ideology that facilitated mobilization. And the oligarchs surely knew that, should the pro-democrats mobilize, the polis likely would be governed democratically. Thus in a shrewd move, the oligarchs attacked head-on the tyrannicide ideology, publicizing its ineffectiveness and thus undermining its “power” as a pro-coordination tool.

REPAIRING THE STATUE CIRCA 281

The cumulative weight of several points suggests that the democrats repaired and arranged for the regular crowning of the statue of Philites after Seleukos's victory at the battle of Kouroupedion (281). To begin with, the
dēmos
clearly was in control of the polis after that battle.
⁴⁹
As noted above (note 43), there are several extant public inscriptions dated between the 270s and 260s that indicate that the
dēmos
was in control of the city. Indeed, one of those inscriptions,
I. Erythrai
29 (line 12), refers to the city's
dēmokratia
. There clearly was a regime change: “those in the oligarchy,” to use the phrase found in the Philites stele, were overthrown and the democrats reestablished their control. Thus, in circa 280 a regime came to power whose members almost certainly would have repaired the statue of Philites if it was broken.
⁵⁰