Death to Tyrants! (48 page)

46
Compare the massacre of the Eleusinians during the time of the Thirty (Xen.
Hell
. 2.4.8–10). Kritias demanded that the vote—like that envisioned in this provision—be open. Thus everybody's hands would be bloody.

47
This basic interpretation is favored by Maffi (2005: 157–58).

48
I borrow the term “memory sanction” from Flower (2006). Memory sanctions appear to have been somewhat uncommon in the ancient Greek world. Well-known Athenian examples are these: against Hipparchos, sometime after his ostracism of 487 (Lykourg.
Leok
. 117–19); against Philip V in 200 (Livy 31.44.4); against Peisistratos, the son of Hippias, whereby the
dēmos
“effaced the inscription” (
ἠφάνισε τοὐπίγραμμα
: Thuc. 6.54.7) of the altar to the twelve gods; as indicted by his altar to Apollo, that altar would have contained his name. One might also note that the Amphipolitans, in 422, obliterated (
ἀφανίσαντες
) anything that reminded them of Hagnon (Thuc. 5.11.1). It is interesting to note that a local dynast's sarcophagus from Çan (midway between Ilion and Daskyleion) that dates to the first half of the fourth century might contain evidence of a memory sanction: the figure of an individual has been chiseled out. It is thus quite possible that the Ilians were drawing on a local Persian practice. For the sarcophagus, see Sevinç et al. (2001). That memory sanctions were a Persian practice: Sevinç et al. (2001: 395n50). The article does not mention the Ilian tyrant-killing law.

49
IJG
(II: 33) translates
mnēmeion
as “monument.” Friedel (1937: 93) translates it as “Erinnerungszeichen.” Frisch (1975: 70) translates it as “Erinnerung.” Dössel (2003: 204) translates it as “Gegenstand des Erinnerns.”

50
Dössel (2003: 218) contrasts this with the Athenian pro-democrats' practice to publicly record the name of anti-democratic revolutionaries. She cites Andok.
Myst
. 78.

51
Nothing can be said about provision 13 other than that it is part of the law's second section (i.e., it addressed matters that occurred while the democracy is overthrown: thus the provision begins
ἐάν τις ἐπὶ τυράννου ἢ ὀλ
[
ι
|
γαρχίας
).

52
As Koch notes (1996: 61), the possibilities are endless: individuals could hire mercenaries, bribe people in the regime to act against the regime, etc. Recall the inscription from Erythrai (
I. Erythrai
21), discussed in the section in
chapter 5
titled “Erection of the Statue in Wake of Alexander's Conquest,” that records honors for Phanes because he (line 7)
χρήματά τε ἐσήν
[
ε
]
γκεν ἄτοκα
. That money, as noted, was used both to help overthrow a nondemocratic regime and to ensure the permanence of the new, democratic regime.

53
It is unclear what these “special boards”—the translation provided by
LSJ
s.v.
ἀρχεῖον
II—were. Note that I take
τὰ ἐπίτιμα ταὐτὰ εἶναι
(line 148) to refer soley to the penalty of
atimia
articulated in lines 140–44, not both to the penalty of
atimia
and (somehow) to the fines articulated in lines 136–40.

54
For the difficulties surrounding the honoring of those involved in the assassination of Phrynichos, see
ML
85. For the difficulties surrounding the honoring of those involved in the overthrow of the Thirty, see the comments in
RO
4. Friedel (1937: 97) concluded that the final provisions of the Ilian anti-tyranny law indicate that the Ilians had experienced a serious decline in civic morality. If that is the case, the Ilians nevertheless expected behavior like that found in late-fifth-century Athens.

55
Friedel (1937: 96): “und diese Bestimmungen sollen das erste Jahr lang gelten.” Frisch (1975: 70): “und diese Regelung soll mit diesem Jahr in Kraft tretten.”
IJG
(II: 35): “Il en sera ainsi dès la présente année.” Dössel (2003: 205): “und es soll dies das erste Jahr sein.”

56
It should be noted that Frisch concluded that lines 158–62 (i.e., provision 16) also indicate that the Ilians experienced a tyranny before they promulgated their anti-tyranny law: “And whoever receives [money] from them and does not spend it so that democracy is established, or whoever holding [money acquired] from them does not reveal the expenditures for those matters, he shall pay back double of what he received if convicted in court.” Frisch (1975: 71) argues that it would be foolish to enact such a provision governing future efforts against a nondemocratic regime because doing so would practically force those who accepted money in good faith to spend it immediately, lest they still hold the money when the tyranny is overthrown. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. But it is perhaps more likely that Frisch has identified an unintended consequence. Also, Lund (1992: 121) suggests that the frequent use of imperatives in the law's final section might suggest that the Ilians had overthrown a nondemocratic regime.

Scholars who believe that there was a tyranny in Ilion before the promulgation of the Ilian anti-tyranny law:
IJG
(II: pp. 36–37), Friedel (1937: 83), Frisch (1975: 71–72), and Dössel (2003: 205–6). Scholars who have concluded that the Ilians might not have experienced a tyranny before they promulgated their anti-tyranny law: Dittenberger (
OGIS
218); Magie (1950: 924–25n19); Funck (1994: 320). Koch (1996: 42–45) and Berve (1967: 422) are rather noncommittal. Maffi (2005: 141) suggests that the law was likely inspired by recent events in Ilion, but states that the nature of those events is unknowable.

57
See Dittenberger's description of the letterforms at the introduction to his commentary on the text. Berve (1967: 419), Friedel (1937: 83),
IJG
(II: 37), Funck (1994), and Koch (1996: 41) accept a post-Kouroupedion date.

58
For the arguments on the date of
OGIS
219, see Ma (2000: 254–59).

59
In a well-known passage, Strabo (13.1.26) appears to state that Lysimachos was Ilion's benefactor: he built a temple and extensive city walls, and transferred to it several of the surrounding towns. But Strabo was quite likely referring to Alexandria Troas, not to Ilion. See Rose (2003: 31–35).

60
Billow's suggestion is strengthened by the fact that Demetrios (the son of Antigonos) sent forces to relieve the people of Abydos (Diod. Sic. 20.107.3). It is also worth pointing out that the decree praising Seleukos (
I. Ilion
31) is fragmentary and might have noted the liberation of Ilion. Note that
I. Ilion
18, a decree of the Ilian koinon (ca. 300), refers (line 7) to a military context. It is possible that it could be tied to the difficulties of 302. On Prepelaos's campaign of 302, see Magie (1950: 89, 916–17nn2–3).

61
Note, however, that
I. Ilion
66 (a fragment of an honorary decree) possibly dates circa 300 since its lettering is nearly identical to
I. Ilion
24. The word
dēmos
is restored in the former (line 8). It is possible that both inscriptions date to the pre-Ipsos period. Perhaps they should be associated with the resistance to the ravaging of the Troad by Lysimachos and his general Prepelaos. Note, too, that there are no extant inscriptions from Ilion that securely date to the reign of Lysimachos.
I. Ilion
66 and 24 possibly do (if dated post-Ipsos). But the aforementioned pre-Ipsos scenario is more likely. Kent Rigsby (2007: 43–44) suggests that a newly found inscription that records an oath of synoecism between Ilion and Kokylion likely dates to the first half of the third century and might date to the reign of Lysimachos. Friedel (1937: 83n157) suggests that the lack of inscriptions dating to the period of Lysimachos's rule might be attributed to the “damnatio memoriae” provisions in the tyrant-killing law (i.e., provision 12).

62
There are four relevant inscriptions (numbers refer to
I. Ilion
): 31 (281, refers to the
dēmos
; it is very fragmentary and almost certainly contained the democratic motion formula); 32 (ca. 280, refers to
dēmos
and contains the motion formula, lines 19–20); 33 (ca. 274, refers to
dēmos
but, since it records letters written about and to Ilion, does not contain the motion formula); 34 (ca. 275–269, refers to the
dēmos
and contains the motion formula, lines 8–9). And one might also include
I. Ilion
40. It records an honorary decree of the Ilion
dēmos
that contains the full motion formula (lines 6–7) and is dated to the third century, perhaps the first half of the century. The change of language in Ilian decrees after circa 280 is clearly demonstrated by a comparison between
I. Ilion
23 (recording an honorary decree dated ca. 359) and
I. Ilion
34 (an honorary decree dated 275–269).
I. Ilion
23 reads,
Ἰλιεῖς ἔδοσαν
…
προξενίαν καὶ εὐεργεσίαν
.
I. Ilion
34 reads,
δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι
…
εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτην τῆς πόλεως
.

63
Burstein (1976: 87). Note that
I. Ephesos
1377 is likely an anti-tyranny law. It is dated to “4th/3rd c.” Also, sometime during the first half of the third century, each citizen of Kalymna swore “I will establish neither oligarchy or tyranny nor any other regime other than democracy” (
ὀλγαρχίαν δὲ οὐδὲ τύραννον οὐδὲ ἄλλο πολίτευμα ἔξω δαμο
|
κρατίας οὐ καταστάσω
) (Tit. Calymnii Test. XII, lines 21–22).

64
Funck (1994) argues that the Ilian tyrant-killing law was promulgated pursuant to Seleukid royal policy aimed at gaining the loyalty of Ilion (“ein Meisterstück seleukidischer Städtepolitik”: p. 320). This is certainly possible but, because of the state of the evidence, speculative.

65
Koch (1996: 43–44) suggests that the Ilian democrats might have crafted their tyrant-killing law while in exile.
IJG
(II: 37) refers to the law as a loi révolutionnaire (which accounts for its sloppiness and apparent lack of order).

66
Note the agreement between Eumenes I and his mercenaries (
OGIS
266). In line 2, we learn that the mercenaries were called
stratiōtai
and were stationed at Philetaireia (base of Mount Ida—to protect the northern boarder) and Attaleia (near the source of the Kaïkos river—to protect the eastern boarder).

67
See
I. Erythrai
201 (and commentary) for an elaborate example of this phenomenon: over fifty priesthoods are listed. It dates to the first half of the third century.

68
This was suggested at least as early as Hicks and Hill (1901: 266).

69
See Magie (1950: 725n2). King Demaratos and his descendants (the Demaratidae) controlled Teuthrania and Halisarna: Xen.
Hell
. 3.1.6; Xen.
Anab
. 2.1.3, 7.8.17; cf. Hdt. 6.67–70. The Eretrian Gongylos and his descendants (the Gongylidae) controlled Gambrion, Palaigambrion, Myrina, and Gryneion: Xen.
Hell
. 3.1.6; cf. Thuc. 1.128.6f and Diod. Sic. 11.44.3. It would appear that the Gongylidae controlled Pergamum in the early fourth century (Xen.
Anab
. 7.8.8), but it is not certain. See, too, McShane (1964: 16).

70
Paus. 1.10.4; Strabo 13.4.1; see McShane (1964: 30–31). The independence of Pergamum was solidified militarily, when Eumenes, shortly after inheriting control of Pergamum in 263/2, defeated Antiochos II in a battle near Sardeis. See Magie (1950: 733n16).

71
Although not explicitly referring to the Troad—but the Troad would no doubt have been included—Seleukos II “wrote to the kings, dynasts, cities, and leagues” requesting that they consider the temple of Aphrodite Stratonikē to be inviolable (
asylon
) and Smyrna to be sacred and inviolable (
OGIS
229 line 11). According to Thucydides (1.138.5–6), Themistocles ruled (
ἦρχε
) Magnesia on the Maiander, Lampsakos, and Myous. Themistocles issued personal coinage in Magnesia: Gardner (1913: 165).

72
According to Strabo (13.1.27), the Gauls briefly occupied Ilion.

73
For an interesting analysis of the codependency between mercenaries and tyrants, see Polyb. 11.13.3–8. See also Xen.
Hier
. 4.9 (and passim).

74
It is also worth noting that Thrasyboulos (tyrant of Miletos) apparently advised Periandros (tyrant of Korinth) to assassinate the city's best men in order to maintain power. For the famous story, see Hdt. 5.92.

75
Aristophanes's comedies
Wasps
and
Knights
reveal this phenomenon. On the dynamic here noted, see Henderson (2003) and Ostwald (1986: 199–229).

76
The paranoia of tyrants was proverbial: “there is nothing more timorous than a tyrant” (Plut.
Arat
. 6.5). Writers of the Athenian dissent community also stressed that point: e.g., Xen.
Hier.
5; Pl.
Resp.
579 B-C.

77
Note that the rule of the Thirty was preceded by the rigging of the selection to the
boulē
; see Munn (2000: 207–9).

78
For such deceptive rhetoric in late-fifth-century Athens, see the section in
chapter 1
titled “Coordination Problem.” For concern over the use of deceptive rhetoric in Eretria, see the section in
chapter 2
titled “First Particular Layer of Defense.”

79
There are at least twenty-one relevant inscriptions that are more or less securely dated to the third century, yet after the tyrant-killing law:
I. Ilion
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 51, 61, 67 (third/second century), 38, 44, 202, 203, 204, 205 (third/second century), 207 (third/second century), 201 (early Hellenistic); Rigsby (2002), (2004), (2007). Eleven of those inscriptions suggest that the
dēmos
controlled the city:
I. Ilion
31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (
dēmos
restored), 36, 40, 51, 61, 67; Rigsby (2002). Nine of the remaining ten are quite fragmentary and give no indication of the ruling regime:
I. Ilion
38, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 201; Rigsby (2004), (2007). That leaves
I. Ilion
44. But it is a private dedication of a woman from Pergamum, dated 209–205, to the gods in Samothrace on behalf of Ptolemy IV and his family; it would not be expected to indicate the nature of Ilion's regime.