Services on Demand
Journal
Article
Indicators
- Cited by SciELO
Related links
- Similars in SciELO
Share
Synthesis (La Plata)
Print version ISSN 0328-1205On-line version ISSN 1851-779X
Synthesis (La Plata) vol.22 La Plata Dec. 2015
ARTÍCULOS
Melina Tamiolaki *
University of Crete
tamiolaki@uoc.gr
Grecia
Resumen
Este trabajo trata sobre la famosa digresión de Tucídides en el libro sexto de su historia acerca de la caída de la tiranía en Atenas (Tuc. 6.54-59) y su relación con el relato de Heródoto. La digresión de Tucídides (y mÍs específicamente su tono polémico) ha provocado controversia entre los comentadores, que han analizado a fondo las narrativas de los dos historiadores tanto desde una perspectiva histórica como historiogrÍfica. Este estudio tiende a contribuir a esta discusión a través de tres sugerencias: la primera, Tucídides se mete no solo con la pequeña sección sobre los tiranicidas de la Historia de Heródoto (esto es Hdt. 5.55-65), sino, mÍs bien, con toda la narrativa de la Historia de Heródoto sobre la liberación de Atenas de la tiranía que se extiende hasta el discurso de Socles (esto es Hdt. 5.55-5.96.2); segunda, las correcciones de Tucídides al relato de Heródoto son menores, tercera, dado que las divergencias de Tucídides con respecto a Heródoto no son decisivas para la versión correcta de los hechos, el tono polémico de Tucídides en su digresión resulta todavía mÍs difícil de explicar. En este trabajo se sugiere tentativamente que la actitud polémica de Tucídides tiene mÍs sentido si es interpretada en el contexto de la rivalidad del historiador con Heródoto.
Palabras Clave: Tucídides; Heródoto; Tiranía; Historia
Abstract
This paper deals with Thucydidesâ famous digression in the sixth book of his history about the fall of tyranny in Athens (Thuc. 6.54-59) and its relation to Herodotusâ account. Thucydidesâ digression (and more specifically its polemical tone) has sparked controversy among commentators, who have analyzed extensively the narratives of the two historians both from a historical and from a historiographical perspective. This study aims to contribute to this discussion, by making three suggestions: first, Thucydides engages not only with the small section about the tyrannicides of Herodotusâ history (that is Hdt. 5.55-65), but rather with the whole Herodotean narrative about the liberation of Athens from tyranny which extends up to Soklesâ speech (that is Hdt. 5.55-5.96.2); second, Thucydidesâ corrections to Herodotusâ account are minor; third, given that Thucydidesâ divergences from Herodotus are not so decisive for the correct version of the events, Thucydidesâ polemical tone in his digression becomes even more difficult to explain. In this paper will suggest tentatively that Thucydidesâ polemical stance makes better sense if it is interpreted in the context of the historianâs rivalry with Herodotus.
Keywords: Thucydides; Herodotus; Tyranny; History
Τhis study offers a reassessment of the famous narratives of the two classical historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, on the fall of tyranny in Athens.1 Both historians treat this topic in digressions. The context of Herodotusâ digression in the fifth book of his Histories is Aristagorasâ call of the Athenians for help during the Ionian Revolution. Aristagoras turned to the Athenians because they were the most powerful city in Greece. The digression about the fall of tyranny in Athens thus functions as a detailed comment destined to show precisely how Athens became great: by overthrowing tyranny and by establishing democracy.2 Thucydides also interrupts his main narrative of the Sicilian Expedition in the sixth book of his History and makes a flashback to the events of the previous century, with the apparent aim of explaining the origins of anti-tyrannical hatred in Athens and connecting it with the extreme suspicion of his contemporary Athenians about the possible tyrannical ambitions of Alcibiades (Thuc. 6.53.3).
The fall of tyranny in Athens, this crucial event of Athenian history, has attracted much scholarly attention: the narratives of the two historians have been analyzed both from a historical and from a historiographical perspective.3 It is not the aim of this study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the various and controversial topics that the two narratives raise.4 I will focus instead on three specific issues, which, in my opinion, are worth revisiting:
a) Herodotusâ narrative as comparative material with Thucydidesâ digression. Scholars usually restrict themselves to the paragraphs 55-65 of the fifth book of Herodotus as a basis of comparison with Thucydides.5 Although this is fair, since these paragraphs recount Hipparchosâ murder, this study will suggest that Thucydidesâ narrative can be better illuminated, if the Herodotean spectrum of comparison is broadened: Thucydides seems to engage with the larger Herodotean section about the liberation from tyranny which extends up to Soklesâ speech (Hdt. 5.55-5.96.2).6
b) The degree of thematic differentiation between Thucydides and Herodotus. Simon Hornblower rightly observes that Thucydides wishes to correct and refill Herodotus, with regards to the homosexual angle of Hipparchosâ murder. He considers this addition important enough to justify Thucydidesâ polemical tone and he parts company from Felix Jacoby, who maintains that the two narratives are essentially in agreement.7 The interpretation I will advance follows S. Hornblower on the issue of engagement of Thucydides with Herodotus, but I will also insist on the convergences between the two narratives, with the aim of showing that they are more complementary than contradictory.
c) Thucydidesâ polemical tone and his target(s). This is the most perplexing and controversial issue regarding Thucydidesâ digression. F. Jacobyâs thesis about Hellanikos being Thucydidesâ target is no longer tenable.8 Other interpretations (about the Athenians in general, or some Athenians, or Athenian oral tradition as possible targets) have been also proposed, while Antonis Tsakmakis has suggested that Thucydidesâ target may well be Herodotus.9 In the third part of my paper I will put forth some more arguments, which give further justice to Tsakmakisâ suggestion. My main contention will be that Thucydidesâ polemical stance makes better sense if it is interpreted in the context of the historianâs rivalry with his predecessor.
1.Structure of the two narratives
I begin with some observations about the internal structure of the two accounts. At first sight we notice an important structural difference between them. Although both narratives are digressions, Thucydidesâ digression is brief and clearly delineated, covering the chapters 54-59 of the sixth book. Thucydides provides markers about the beginning and end of his digression.
Beginning of the digression:
For the people, knowing through hearsay (ͼÏιÏÏÎ¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î³Í½°Ï ͽ Î´Í¿Î¼Î¿Ï Í¼ÎºÎ¿Í¿) that the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons had become harsh in its last stage, and furthermore that it had been overthrown not by themselves and Harmodios, but by the Lakedaimonians, were in constant fear and saw everything as suspicious (ͼÏοβεͿÏο αͼ°ÎµÍ½¶ καͽ¶ ÏάνÏα ͽÏÏÏÏÏÏ Í¼Î»Î¬Î¼Î²Î±Î½ÎµÎ½) (Thuc. 6.53.3).10
End of the digression:
Considering all this and recalling everything they knew about it from hearsay (ͽ¯Î½ Í¼Î½Î¸Ï Î¼Î¿ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Í½ Î´Í¿Î¼Î¿Ï Í½ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ͼθηναίÏν, καͽ¶ μιμνͿÏκÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Í½ Ïα ͼκοͿ ÏεÏͽ¶ αͽÏÍ¿¶Î½ ͼ ÏίÏÏαÏο), the people of Athens were at this time bitter and suspicious (ÏαλεÏͽ¸Ï ͼ¦Î½ ÏÏÏε καͽ¶ ͽÏÏÏÏηÏ) of anyone who stood accused over the Mysteries, and it seemed to them that it had all been done to further oligarchic and tyrannical conspiracy (Thuc. 6.60.1).
The repetition of central themes (hearsay of the demos, knowledge of the demos, fear of the Athenians) and the verbal echoes (ͽÏÏÏÏÏÏ Í¼Î»Î¬Î¼Î²Î±Î½ÎµÎ½-ͽÏÏÏÏηÏ, ͼÏιÏÏάμενοÏ- ͼ ÏίÏÏαÏο) create a ring composition and tight the digression together as a unified section.11
On the contrary, Herodotusâ digression is much longer and more informative. Chapters 55-65 of the fifth book of his history, which are devoted to the events of Hipparchosâ murder, give the impression of a coherent whole,12 according to the markers that the historian provides.
Beginning of the section:
So Aristagoras, being driven out of Sparta, came to Athens, which at that time had been freed of its tyrants (ͼÏÎµÎ»Î±Ï Î½ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î´Í½² ͽ ͼÏιÏÏαγÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼Îº ÏÍ¿Ï Î£ÏάÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼¤Î¹Îµ Í¼Ï Ïͽ°Ï Í¼Î¸Î®Î½Î±Ï Î³ÎµÎ½Î¿Î¼ÎÎ½Î±Ï ÏÏ ÏάννÏν ͽ§Î´Îµ Í¼Î»ÎµÏ Î¸ÎÏαÏ) (Hdt. 5.55.1).
End of the section:
So in this way the Athenians got rid of the tyrants (ÎͽÏÏ Î¼Í½²Î½ ͼθηναͿοι ÏÏ ÏάννÏν ͼÏαλλάÏθηÏαν) (Hdt. 5.65.5).
Yet the following narrative, about the establishment of democracy and Kleisthenesâ reforms, is also highly relevant to the topic of greatness of Athens, which motivated the first digression.13 Herodotus introduces this second narrative as follows:
Athens had already been an important city, and now, that it got rid of the tyrants, it became even greater (ͼθͿναι, ͼοͿ¦Ïαι καͽ¶ ÏÏͽ¶Î½ μεγάλαι, ÏÏÏε ͼÏαλλαÏθεͿÏαι ÏÏ ÏάννÏν ͼγίνονÏο μÎζονεÏ) (Hdt. 5.66.1).
In 5.78 he seems to resume his statement of 5.66:
So Athens became great (ͼθηναͿοι μÎν Î½Ï Î½ ηͽξηνÏο). It is not only in respect of one thing, but of everything that equality as free speech (ͼ°ÏηγοÏίη) is an important thing. Take the case of Athens, which under the rule of the tyrants proved no better in war than any of her neighbors but, once rid of the tyrants, was far the first of all (ͼÏαλλαÏθÎνÏÎµÏ Î´Í½² ÏÏ ÏάννÏν μακÏÍ¿· ÏÏÍ¿¶Ïοι ͼγÎνονÏο) (Hdt. 5.78).
However, the expression of Herodotusâ opinion about the importance of isegoria represents rather a false closure, since the topics of greatness of Athens, in connection with the liberation from tyranny and the democratic constitution, emerge again prominently later, when the historian relates the Spartansâ failed attempts to reinstall tyranny in Athens:
When the Lakedaimonians got these oracles and saw that the Athenians were increasing in power (καͽ¶ ÏοͽºÏ Í¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±Î¯Î¿Ï Ï Í½¥ÏÏν αͽξομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï) and were not prompt to obey them, and when they realized that the Attic race, in its freedom (ͽ¡Ï ͼλεÏθεÏον), would be the equal of themselves, but, if controlled by a tyranny, would be weak and disposed to subjection (καÏεÏÏμενον δͽ² ͽÏͽ¸ ÏÏ ÏÎ±Î½Î½Î¯Î´Î¿Ï Í¼Ïθενͽ²Ï καͽ¶ ÏειθαÏÏÎεÏθαι ͼÏοιμον) -when they understood all this, they sent Hippias, the son of Peisitratos, from Sigeion on the Hellespont⦠(Hdt. 5.91.1)
More tellingly, Herodotusâ restatement in chapter 97 about Aristagoras being driven away by the Spartans, forms a ring composition with chapter 55 and thus compels us to examine this larger section (Hdt. 5.55.1-5.96.2) as a unified whole.14
In sum, we can discern three interconnected narratives in Herodotusâ digression: first, about the fall of tyranny (Hdt. 5.55.1-5.65.5); second, about the establishment of democracy and the reforms of Kleisthenes (5.66.1-5.78); third, about the final rejection of tyranny and the definite liberation of Athens from tyrants (5.79-5.96.2). These narratives are connected with each other through the technique of amplification: in the first narrative Herodotus speaks only about tyranny, then he links the fall of tyranny with democracy and the increase of power of Athens and finally, in the third section, he further expands on all the previous topics: fall of tyranny, democracy, and auxesis of Athens.
It is obvious then that Herodotusâ preoccupation with the liberation of Athens from tyranny essentially covers much wider space than in Thucydidesâ history: chapters 55-96, which are of course interrupted and embellished by other (smaller or greater) digressions.15 What can this structural difference tell us about the treatment reserved to this topic by the two authors? Acknowledging the wider context of the Herodotean version is necessary, in order to better assess Thucydidesâ account, since Thucydides, as we will see below, does not engage only with the first part of Herodotusâ narrative (that is, chs. 55-65), but rather responds to the whole Herodotean section about the liberation from tyrants. On the other hand, the evidently limited space Thucydides devotes to the fall of tyranny could indicate that he does not share Herodotusâ great interest in this significant event of Athenian history. But is this just a lack of interest or rather an indirect recognition that his predecessor has said more than enough on the topic? I will return to this question later, after having examined the versions of the two historians also in terms of content.
2. Content of the two narratives
The two narratives contain important convergences, some of which have not been fully evaluated by modern critics. The most pronounced one is that Herodotus too makes the clarification that Harmodios and Aristogeiton killed Hipparchos, the brother of the tyrant Hippias. He also mentions that the murder took place during the procession of the Panathenaia and states, again in accordance with Thucydides, that after the murder of Hipparchos, tyranny became harsher:
Hipparchos, the son of Peisistratos, had been killed by Harmodios and Aristogeiton, who were distantly of the race of the Gephyraioi. This Hipparchos was the brother of the tyrant, Hippias (ͼ½ÏÏαÏÏον Ïͽ¸Î½ ΠειÏιÏÏÏάÏÎ¿Ï , ͼ¹ÏÏÎ¯ÎµÏ Î´Í½² ÏοͿ¦ ÏÏ ÏÎ¬Î½Î½Î¿Ï Í¼Î´ÎµÎ»ÏεÏν), and he had indeed seen a vision in his dream that very clearly foretold what would befall him. After the murder, for the following four years, Athens was ruled even more tyrannically than before (μεÏͽ° ÏαͿ¦Ïα ͼÏÏ ÏαννεÏονÏο ͼθηναͿοι ͼÏ' ͼÏεα ÏÎÏÏεÏα οͽδͽ²Î½ ͼ§ÏÏον ͼλλͽ° καͽ¶ μ;¶Î»Î»Î¿Î½ ͼ¢ ÏÏͽ¸ ÏοͿ¦). The dream vision that Hipparchos had seen was this: it was the night before the Panathenaia, and Hipparchos dreamed that a great, handsome man stood above him and spoke to him⦠As soon as day dawned, he openly entrusted the matter to the dream interpreters; but after that he would have done none of it and went on to conduct the procession, in the course of which he died (ͼÏεμÏε Ïͽ´Î½ ÏομÏήν, ͼν ÏÍ¿ δͽ´ ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏ Ï;·) (Hdt. 5.55.1).16
Distinctive elements in Herodotusâ narrative are the description of Hipparchosâ dream and the emphasis on the connections of the two murderers with the Gephyraioi.17 Overall, however, although Herodotus does not elaborate, like Thucydides, on the exact conditions and motivations of Hipparchosâ murder, he does show awareness of the correct version of the events. More importantly, his clarification about the brother of the tyrant being killed allows for thinking that he was motivated by the same concern with Thucydides, that is to correct Athenian misconceptions.
Other convergences, which have not attracted much scholarly attention, can be also discerned. For instance, an element surfacing rather incidentally in the Herodotean narrative is that some people in Athens were sympathetic to the tyrants. This is especially evident in the second section of Herodotusâ digression: the historian remarks that the Spartan king Kleomenes fought âwith those of the Athenians who wanted to be freeâ (ÏοͿÏι Î²Î¿Ï Î»Î¿Î¼ÎνοιÏι εͼ¶Î½Î±Î¹ Í¼Î»ÎµÏ Î¸ÎÏοιÏι, Hdt. 5.64.2), thus implying that other people preferred being ruled by the tyrants.18 This description brings him again close to Thucydides, who characterizes the tyrantsâ rule as ânot oppressiveâ (οͽκ ͼÏαÏθήÏ) and devotes some considerable space to the laudable achievements of the Peisistratidai.19
Both authors also seem to share a kind of embarrassment for the implication of the Lakedaimonians in Athenian political affairs. Herodotus underlines the contribution of the Alkmeonidai and dwells on their glorious background, but when he is about to narrate the participation of the Lakedaimonians in the process of liberation, he shows some detachment, by adding the expression âas the Athenians sayâ:
As the Athenians say (ͽ©Ï ͽ¦Î½ δͽ´ οͼ± ͼθηναͿοι λÎÎ³Î¿Ï Ïι), these men sat as suppliants in Delphi and bribed the Pythia, whenever Spartiates, either privately or as part of a public delegation, came to consult the oracle, to urge on them the liberation of Athens (Hdt. 5.63.1-2).
Moreover, he attributes the victory of the Lakedaimonians over the tyrants to good luck (Hdt. 5.65.1: ÏÏ Î½ÏÏ Ïίη). Thucydidesâ narrative also reveals some oscillation: when he describes the perceptions of the Athenians at the beginning of his digression, he admits that the Athenians didnât feel at ease with the fact that the Lakedaimonians played a more important role for their liberation from tyranny than themselves or Harmodios (Thuc. 6.53.3: ÏÏοÏÎÏι οͽδ' ͽÏ' Í¼Î±Ï ÏÍ¿¶Î½ καͽ¶ ͼÏÎ¼Î¿Î´Î¯Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±ÏÎ±Î»Ï Î¸ÎµÍ¿Ïαν, ͼλλ' ͽÏͽ¸ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ÎακεδαιμονίÏν). However, when he resumes himself his narrative at the end of his digression, he makes a brief and passing reference to both the Lakedaimonians and the exiled Alkmeonidai as agents of the final liberation (Thuc. 6.59.4: ÏÏ ÏαννεÏÏÎ±Ï Î´Í½² ͼÏη ÏÏία ͼ¹ÏÏÎ¯Î±Ï Í¼Ïι ͼθηναίÏν καͽ¶ ÏÎ±Ï Î¸ÎµÍ½¶Ï ͼν ÏÍ¿· ÏεÏάÏÏÍ¿³ ͽÏͽ¸ ÎακεδαιμονίÏν καͽ¶ ͼλκμεÏνιδͿ¶Î½ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ÏÎµÏ Î³ÏνÏÏν). Of course, Herodotusâ long account must have rendered redundant a detailed treatment from Thucydidesâ part. But Thucydidesâ not expanding on the participation of the Alkmeonidai and the Lakedaimonians in the liberation may also testify to his reluctance to take sides on the controversial question of defining whose assistance was the most decisive (a question, however, which had been amply problematized by Herodotus).
If the two narratives contain considerable convergences, where does Thucydidesâ âoriginalityâ lie? What is his contribution to the topic of the fall of tyranny in Athens? Thucydides distances himself from Herodotus in two instances: firstly, he seems to tacitly correct his predecessor, when he mentions the military achievements of the tyrants, a description which is not compatible with Herodotusâ image of Athens as weak under the tyrants.20 Secondly, contrary to Herodotus, who explicitly associates (especially in the second and third section of his digression) the fall of tyranny with freedom and democracy, Thucydides does not establish such a connection. Interestingly, freedom vocabulary is prevalent in Herodotusâ digression,21 but occurs only once in Thucydides:
The members of the conspiracy were not many for reasons of security; they hoped that even if a few acted boldly, those with no advance knowledge, since they even had weapons, would want to take part in their own liberation then and there (ÏÏ;¶Ï αͽÏοͽºÏ Î¾Ï Î½ÎµÎ»ÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÏοͿ¦Î½) (Thuc. 6.56.3).
It is noteworthy that, although Thucydidesâ corrections are important and could have become the object of a detailed (and polemic) narrative, the historian chooses to adopt a polemical tone regarding other matters: the homosexual angle of Hipparchosâ murder and the adducing of more evidence, which proves that Hippias was the eldest brother. However, both these issues are minor: the homosexual angle does not preclude political motivation, which emerges, even indirectly, in Thucydidesâ account;22 as for Thucydidesâ insistence on the seniority of Hippias, this issue was not very decisive for the correct version of the events, given that tyranny in ancient Greece was most of the times a family business.23 More significantly, we have no indication that Herodotus was not aware of these topics too: he had also mentioned that it was Hipparchos, the tyrantâs brother, who was killed. It is not improbable that he was also aware of the homosexual affair, but chose to suppress it, giving prominence to other factors.24 Overall then, it would not be far-fetched to maintain that Thucydidesâ narrative in reality serves as a footnote to Herodotusâ account. This conclusion can be further corroborated by the fact that the later text of the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians draws heavily on Herodotus and cites him (not Thucydides) when it describes the events of Peisistratosâ tyranny in Athens.25
3.Thucydidesâ polemical tone
We can now turn to the most intriguing topic concerning Thucydidesâ digression, its strongly polemical tone. If we admit, as I have suggested in the previous two sections of this paper, that Thucydides interacts with the larger Herodotean section about the liberation of Athens from tyranny and that his additions (or qualifications) are not so decisive for the correct version of the events, his polemical stance can be seen under a new light. In this section of my paper I will argue for two points: firstly, that Herodotus could be considered a primary target of attack (and not merely one among others); secondly, and more tentatively, that Thucydidesâ aggressive tone might be interpreted as a sign of uneasiness: it may derive from the historianâs awareness that his version of the events cannot essentially replace the account of his predecessor.
Let us begin with Thucydidesâ polemical statements and possible targets. Thucydides states emphatically:
The exploit of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was undertaken because of an incident of love affair (δι' ͼÏÏÏικͽ´Î½ Î¾Ï Î½ÏÏ Ïίαν); by offering an additional account to the preexisting ones, I will show that neither the Athenians nor anybody else say anything accurate about their own tyrants or about this event (ͼ£Î½ ͼγͽ¼ ͼÏͽ¶ ÏλÎον διηγηÏÎ¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Í¼ÏοÏανͿ¶ οͽÏε ÏοͽºÏ Í¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï Ï Î¿Í½Ïε αͽÏοͽºÏ Í¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±Î¯Î¿Ï Ï ÏεÏͽ¶ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ÏÏεÏÎÏÏν ÏÏ ÏάννÏν οͽδͽ² ÏεÏͽ¶ ÏοͿ¦ γενομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Í¼ÎºÏιβͽ²Ï οͽδͽ²Î½ λÎγονÏαÏ) (Thuc. 6.54.1).
At the end of his narrative he resumes again forcefully the issues of love grievance and daring which were crucial to his version of the events:
It was in this way, because of a loverâs grievance (δι' ͼÏÏÏικͽ´Î½ λÏÏην), that both the original plot and the heedless daring (ͼ¡ ͼλÏγιÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏλμα) of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, in the alarm of the moment, came about (Thuc. 6.59.1).
These formulations have caused some bewilderment: it is odd that in two other instances Thucydides makes a contrary statement: he mentions that the Athenian demos knew and/or remembered the events about the fall of tyranny by hearsay (Thuc. 6.53.3:ͼÏιÏÏÎ¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î³Í½°Ï ͽ Î´Í¿Î¼Î¿Ï Í¼ÎºÎ¿Í¿, Thuc. 6.60.1: ͽ¯Î½ Í¼Î½Î¸Ï Î¼Î¿ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Í½ Î´Í¿Î¼Î¿Ï Í½ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ͼθηναίÏν, καͽ¶ μιμνͿÏκÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Í½ Ïα ͼκοͿ ÏεÏͽ¶ αͽÏÍ¿¶Î½ ͼ ÏίÏÏαÏο).
If we tried to reconcile these contradictory statements, we could concede that Thucydidesâ focus in passage 6.54 is on the homosexual angle of the murder, which has not been presented in detail by his predecessors, while the knowledge of the demos could refer to the more general beliefs about the fall of tyranny in Athens.26 Simon Hornblower makes the attractive suggestion that the section from 6.54 onwards was written as a recitation unit for a sympotic context, a scenario that would explain what he calls a âflamboyantly polemical openingâ.27 But still, some questions remain open: Thucydidesâ formulation (marked by four negations: οͽÏε, οͽÏε, οͽδÎ, οͽδÎν) is clearly exaggerated.28 Why is he so aggressive? Who is his target in this passage? Who are the âAthenians and the othersâ? Since Thucydides does not essentially contradict Herodotus, but rather completes his narrative, should we exclude Herodotus as a possible target?
I believe this is not the case. Thucydides obviously wishes to criticize (among other things) the contemporary perceptions of (some?) Athenians. Harmodios and Aristogeiton were honored as tyrannicides. Their statues in the Athenian agora pointed to their glorification.29 Skolia also presented them as liberators.30 But these false perceptions are reflected in Herodotus as well, though not in the section about the liberation of Athens from tyranny. In the narrative about the battle of Marathon, Miltiades urges the polemarch Kallimachos to place himself into the tradition of liberators to which Harmodios and Aristogeiton belong: âIt lies in your hands, Kallimachos, whether to enslave Athens or keep her free and thereby leave a memorial for all the life of mankind, such as not even Harmodios and Aristogeiton left behind them (μνημÏÏÏ Î½Î¿Î½ λιÏÎÏθαι Í¼Ï Ïͽ¸Î½ ͼ ÏανÏα ͼνθÏÏÏÏν βίον οͼ·Î¿Î½ οͽδͽ² ͼÏμÏδιÏÏ Ïε καͽ¶ ͼÏιÏÏογείÏÏν) (Hdt. 6.109). Of course, this exhortation is placed in a rhetorical context of emotional appeal and does not represent Herodotusâ view about the liberation from tyranny in Athens.31 But this should not lead us to assume that Thucydides does not consider Herodotus, when he refers to âthe Athenians and the othersâ.
In fact, merging Herodotus with âthe others who hold false perceptionsâ is a technique that Thucydides employs in his prologue in order to underestimate his predecessor.32 Thucydidesâ prologue and the digression of the sixth book share some common elements, which justify their joint examination: the topic of Hipparchosâ murder appears for the first time in the prologue, but in a condensed form (Thuc. 1.20); Thucydidesâ disdain for the masses (whom he names as οͼ± Ïολλοί, Ïͽ¸ ÏλͿθοÏ, οͼ± ͼλλοι, ͽ δͿμοÏ, or more neutrally, oͼ± ÎθηναͿοι, Thuc. 1.20.2, 6.54.1), the distinction between hearsay and factual evidence (1.22.4, 6.53.3, 6.54.1, 6.60.1), and the emphasis on historical accuracy (Thuc. 1.22.4: ͽ Ïοι δͽ² Î²Î¿Ï Î»Î®ÏονÏαι ÏÍ¿¶Î½ Ïε γενομÎνÏν Ïͽ¸ ÏαÏͽ²Ï ÏκοÏεͿν; cf. 6.54.1: ͼκÏιβͽ²Ï οͽδÎν, 6.55.1: ͼκÏιβÎÏÏεÏον ͼλλÏν ͼ°ÏÏÏ Ïίζομαι) constitute additional common features between the two sections of Thucydidesâ history.33 Concerning Thucydidesâ attitude towards Herodotus, more specifically, in his prologue Thucydides stigmatizes the ignorance of the Athenians about the tyrannicides (a passage which looks forward to the digression) and proceeds to highlight other false perceptions, by mentioning two examples from Herodotus regarding Spartan affairs (the votes of Spartan kings and the Pitanate army division):
The mass of the Athenians believe that Hipparchos was tyrant when he was killed by Harmodios and Aristogeiton and not know (ͼθηναίÏν γοͿ¦Î½ Ïͽ¸ ÏÎ»Í¿Î¸Î¿Ï Í¼½ÏÏαÏÏον οͼ´Î¿Î½Ïαι ͽÏ' ͼÏÎ¼Î¿Î´Î¯Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Í½¶ ͼÏιÏÏογείÏÎ¿Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏÏαννον ͽνÏα ͼÏοθανεͿν, καͽ¶ οͽκ ͼ´ÏαÏιν; cf. Thuc. 6.54.1) that Hippias as the eldest son of Peisistratos was the ruler, Hipparchos and Thessalos being his brothers, but Harmodios and Aristogeiton, suspecting at the last minute on that day that Hippias had received some information from their fellow conspirators, kept away from him as forewarned, but since they could accept their danger only if they accomplished something before being arrested, when they found Hipparchos by the sanctuary called Leokoreion organizing the Panathenaic procession, they killed him. And there is a great deal more, from the present, as well as the dimly remembered past, on which the other Greeks too hold false perceptions (καͽ¶ οͼ± ͼλλοι Í¼Î»Î»Î·Î½ÎµÏ Î¿Í½Îº ͽÏθͿ¶Ï οͼ´Î¿Î½Ïαι), such as that each king of the Lakedaimonians casts two votes instead of one, or that they have a Pitanate army division, which never existed (cf. Hdt. 6.57.5, 9.53.2). So devoid of effort is for the many the search for the truth (οͽÏÏÏ Í¼ÏαλαίÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¿Í¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»Î»Î¿Í¿Ï Í¼¡ ζήÏηÏÎ¹Ï ÏÍ¿Ï Í¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï), and they would rather turn to what is readily available (Thuc. 1.20).
Herodotus is not named here, but he is blurred with the other Greeks and the Ïολλοί who hold false perceptions.34 In a similar vein, it is perfectly possible that when Thucydides refers to âthe Athenians and the othersâ in the sixth book, he can include Herodotus among them as well.
But the most crucial indication that Thucydides wrote his digression having Herodotus in mind is the presence of Herodotean features in it. Thucydidesâ digression is marked by important Herodotean elements: he mentions ͼκοή (hearsay) as a source of information, for the demos, as well as for himself (Thuc. 6.53.3, 6.55.1, 6.60.1); again in a Herodotean manner, he includes inscriptions in his narrative (Thuc. 6.54.7, 6.55.1, 6.59.3); he emphasizes individual emotions (Thuc. 6.54.3, 6.55.4, 6.57.3, 6.58.1, 6.59.1); he states that Peisistratos had the name of his grand-father, a statement which evokes the Herodotean Kleisthenes who also had the name of his grand-father, Kleisthenes of Sikyon.35 Furthermore, the term διηγηÏÎ¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï (Thuc. 6.54.1) is a Herodotean way of introducing a narrative, while the word Î¾Ï Î½ÏÏ Ïίη again picks up the Herodotean account (Thuc. 6.54.1; Hdt. 5.65.1).36 Even in terms of structure, Thucydidesâ digression follows a Herodotean model: it contains in it two other smaller digressions.37 The accumulation of Herodotean elements points to a conscious and consistent engagement with the Herodotean narrative and strengthens the hypothesis that the digression was written in a context of rivalry with Herodotus.38
Having established the Herodotean overtones of Thucydidesâ digression and its connections with the prologue of the History, some interesting implications concerning Thucydidesâ digression can arise. Thucydidesâ narrative on the tyrannicides could be viewed as a âshow off of methodâ, a kind of supplement to the prologue. At the same time, Thucydides wishes to show that he can both imitate his predecessorâs method and phrasing and produce a better narrative than him. But is Thucydidesâ narrative really âbetterâ? In fact, Thucydides seems to act like a scholar who has recourse to all possible strategies in order to prove that his contribution (even if this consists in minor additions) is the most important. This assertion can gain further confirmation, if we compare the digression on the tyrannicides with the digression of the Pentakontaetia, which represents another flashback from the main narrative of the first book. In the Pentakontaetia Thucydides fills a significant gap, by recounting, even elliptically, the events after 478 BC, which had not been narrated by Herodotus. He also explicitly states, again polemically, that his predecessors had not treated this period and that Hellanikosâ account was too brief and insufficient (Thuc. 1.97). In the digression of the sixth book, on the contrary, he cannot claim that he wishes to complete his predecessors, since Herodotusâ account is not only largely in accordance with his, but also more thorough. Thatâs why he opts for a more covert way of attack: by imitating Herodotusâ method and phrasing and by striving to create, at the same time, the impression, through his polemical expressions, that his contribution is the most valuable and compelling. Overall, Thucydidesâ polemical stance lacks sufficient justification and his narrative is eventually not convincing. It reveals a tension between an unnecessarily harsh tone and an insistence on minor corrections; and it ultimately reminds the reader that the account of his predecessor is capable not only of rivaling his, but also of surpassing it.
Conclusion
This study has suggested that the degree of interaction between Thucydides and Herodotus on the topic of the fall of tyranny in Athens is wider than is usually assumed. Thucydidesâ digression on the tyrannicides makes better sense if it is interpreted in the background of the whole Herodotean section about the liberation of Athens from tyranny (Hdt. 5.55.1-5.96.2). Three main findings emerge from this investigation: first, the broadened comparison of the narratives of the two authors reveals that the issues on which Thucydides chooses to dwell in his digression are rather insignificant; second, despite the accuracy of Herodotusâ account, the hypothesis cannot be excluded that Thucydides considers him (unjustly) a primary target of attack and somebody who holds false perceptions; finally, the awareness from Thucydidesâ part that his narrative is not necessarily superior to that of Herodotus could be viewed as an additional factor, which accounts for the historianâs polemical tone and triggers inconsistencies in his version of the events.
Notas
* Melina Tamiolaki es Assistant Professor en la Universidad de Creta (Departamento de Filología). Sus intereses en investigación se centran en la historiografía griega, el pensamiento político griego y la teoría de la historia. Es autora del libro Liberté et esclavage chez les historiens grecs classiques, Paris, PUPS 2010 (que obtuvo el premio Zappas de la Association des Ítudes grecques de París, 2011), coeditora (con Antonis Tsakmakis) de Thucydides Between History and Literature, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2013) y editora de Comic Wreath. New Trends in the Study of Ancient Greek Comedy, Rethymnon, Ediciones de la Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad de Creta, 2014 (en griego moderno).
1 This paper was originally presented at the FIEC conference in Bordeaux (in August 2014). I thank the audience for useful feedback and Tim Rood for his comments on an earlier draft of the written version.
2 Interestingly, however, Herodotus does not mention explicitly the greatness of Athens at the beginning of his account. He introduces his digression as follows: ͼÏÎµÎ»Î±Ï Î½ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î´Í½² ͽ ͼÏιÏÏαγÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼Îº ÏÍ¿Ï Î£ÏάÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼¤Î¹Îµ Í¼Ï Ïͽ°Ï Í¼Î¸Î®Î½Î±Ï Î³ÎµÎ½Î¿Î¼ÎÎ½Î±Ï ÏÏ ÏάννÏν ͽ§Î´Îµ Í¼Î»ÎµÏ Î¸ÎÏÎ±Ï (Hdt. 5.55.1); yet at the end of his digression the link between freedom from tyranny and the power of Athens becomes all the more explicit: αͽÏη γͽ°Ï ͼ¡ ÏÏÎ»Î¹Ï ÏÍ¿¶Î½ λοιÏÎÏν Í¼Î´Ï Î½Î¬ÏÏÎµÏ Îµ μÎγιÏÏον (Hdt. 5.97.1).
3 For the events surrounding the fall of tyranny in Athens, see indicatively Lewis D. M. (1988), Smith (1989: 80-89), Giorgini (1993: 107-132), McGlew (1993: 150-156), de Libero (1996: 131-132), Lavelle (1993) Lewis, S. (2009: 35-57). For a historiographical analysis of Herodotusâ narrative, see Dewald (2003), Gray (2007) and Hornblower (2013: ad loc.). Concerning Thucydides, see Connor (1984: 176-180), Rood (1998: 180-181), Hunter (1973/4), Stahl (2003: 1-11), Meyer (2008), Pothou (2009: 144-151), Grethlein (2010: 214-220). In this paper I eschew discussion of the place of Thucydidesâ digression in the narrative of the Peloponnesian War, but I hope that my interpretation can give rise to further reflections on this topic.
4 For the various issues posed by the two narratives, see Hornblower (2008: 433-453).
5 See Hornblower (2008: 435-437) (with previous bibliography).
6 Herodotus introduces the reader to the history of archaic Athens and the rise of Peisistratos in the first book (1.59-64). Thucydides probably has this section in mind as well, but he seems to engage more directly with the narrative about the fall of tyranny of the fifth book.
7 Hornblower (2008: 437), correcting Jacoby (1949: 158): âIf we say that Thucydides and Herodotus are in agreement, that is true, if we confine ourselves to such questions as, âdid the murder of Hipparchos end the tyrannyâ? [â¦]. But Th. surely wished to fill in and correct Hdt.âs silence about the sexual sideâ¦â
8 See Tsakmakis (1996) and Hornblower (2008: 439-440).
9 Tsakmakis (1996).
10 For the translation of Thucydides and Herodotus, I use Lattimore (1998) and Grene (1987), often with modifications. In this paper all italics are mine.
11 For ring-composition in this section, see Connor (1984: 256).
12 See Gray (2007) for an analysis of this section.
13 For the centrality of the topic of greatness of Athens in Herodotus and Thucydides, see WÄcowski (2000: 287-468).
14 Ring composition: Hdt. 5.55.1: ͼÏÎµÎ»Î±Ï Î½ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î´Í½² ͽ ͼÏιÏÏαγÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼Îº ÏÍ¿Ï Î£ÏάÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼¤Î¹Îµ Í¼Ï Ïͽ°Ï ͼθήναÏ. Cf. Hdt. 5.97.1: ͼν ÏοÏÏÍ¿³ δͽ´ ÏÍ¿· καιÏÍ¿· ͽ ÎιλήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Í¼ÏιÏÏαγÏÏÎ·Ï Í½Ïͽ¸ ÎλεομÎÎ½ÎµÎ¿Ï ÏοͿ¦ ÎÎ±ÎºÎµÎ´Î±Î¹Î¼Î¿Î½Î¯Î¿Ï Í¼Î¾ÎµÎ»Î±Ïθεͽ¶Ï ͼκ ÏÍ¿Ï Î£ÏάÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼ÏίκεÏο Í¼Ï Ïͽ°Ï ͼθήναÏ. See also Immerwahr (1966: 116-120), who considers this whole section a âlogos on the History of Athensâ.
15 The smaller digressions are dispersed throughout the bigger digression as follows (in italics):
5.55-65: the killing of the âtyrantâ in Athens
5.57.1-62: digression about the Gephyraioi
5.66.1-5.78: establishment of democracy, Kleisthenesâ reforms
5.67.1-68: digression about the reforms of Kleisthenes of Sikyon
5.79-97: the failed attempt of the Spartans to reinstall tyranny in Athens, Soklesâ speech.
5.82-88: digression about the hostility of Aegina towards Athens
16 Cf. Thuc. 6.55.1: ͽ Ïι δͽ² ÏÏεÏβÏÏαÏÎ¿Ï Í½¢Î½ ͼ¹ÏÏÎ¯Î±Ï Í¼¦Ïξεν, εͼ°Î´Í½¼Ï μͽ²Î½ καͽ¶ ͼκοͿ ͼκÏιβÎÏÏεÏον ͼλλÏν ͼ°ÏÏÏ Ïίζομαι, γνοίη δ' ͼν ÏÎ¹Ï ÎºÎ±Í½¶ αͽÏÍ¿· ÏοÏÏÍ¿³; Thuc. 6.56.2: καͽ¶ αͽÏÎ¿Í¿Ï Ïͽ° μͽ²Î½ ͼλλα ÏÏͽ¸Ï ÏοͽºÏ Î¾Ï Î½ÎµÏιθηÏομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï ÏÍ¿· ͼÏγͿ³ ͼÏÎÏÏακÏο, ÏεÏιÎμενον δͽ² Παναθήναια Ïͽ° μεγάλα; Thuc. 6.59.2: ÏÎ¿Í¿Ï Î´' Í¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï ÏαλεÏÏÏÎÏα μεÏͽ° ÏοͿ¦Ïο ͼ¡ ÏÏ Ïαννͽ¶Ï καÏÎÏÏη.
17 See in more detail Hornblower (2008: 435-436).
18 Herodotus implies a similar division between supporters and detractors of tyranny in Athens also in the narrative of the first book, about the rise of Peisistratos to power: ͼν δͽ² ÏοÏÏÍ¿³ ÏÍ¿· ÏÏÏÍ¿³ ÏÏι ÏÏÏαÏοÏÎµÎ´ÎµÏ Î¿Î¼ÎνοιÏι οͼµ Ïε ͼκ ÏοͿ¦ ͼÏÏÎµÎ¿Ï ÏÏαÏιͿ¶Ïαι ͼÏίκονÏο, ͼλλοι Ïε ͼκ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ δήμÏν ÏÏοÏÎÏÏεον, ÏοͿÏι ͼ¡ ÏÏ Ïαννͽ¶Ï ÏÏͽ¸ Í¼Î»ÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÏÎ¯Î·Ï Í¼¦Î½ ͼÏÏαÏÏÏÏεÏον. See Lavelle (1993: 59-61), for the complacency of the Athenians regarding tyranny and their efforts to conceal it.
19 οͽδͽ² γͽ°Ï Ïͽ´Î½ ͼλλην ͼÏÏͽ´Î½ ͼÏαÏθͽ´Ï ͼ¦Î½ Í¼Ï ÏοͽºÏ ÏολλοÏÏ, ͼλλ' ͼνεÏιÏθÏνÏÏ ÎºÎ±ÏεÏÏήÏαÏο· καͽ¶ ͼÏεÏÎ®Î´ÎµÏ Ïαν ͼÏͽ¶ ÏλεͿÏÏον δͽ´ ÏÏÏαννοι οͽÏοι ͼÏεÏͽ´Î½ καͽ¶ ξÏνεÏινâ¦(Thuc. 6.54.5). For the textual problem of the first phrase, see Dover (1970: ad loc.) and Hornblower (2008: ad loc.). More interestingly, Thucydides seems here to be compatible with Herodotusâ assessment of Peisistratosâ tyranny in Book I (Hdt. 1.59.6): ͼνθα δͽ´ ͽ ΠειÏίÏÏÏαÏÎ¿Ï Í¼¦ÏÏε ͼθηναίÏν, οͽÏε Ïιμͽ°Ï Ïͽ°Ï ͼοÏÏÎ±Ï ÏÏ Î½ÏαÏÎ¬Î¾Î±Ï Î¿Í½Ïε θÎÏμια μεÏαλλάξαÏ, ͼÏί Ïε ÏοͿÏι καÏεÏÏεͿ¶Ïι ͼνεμε Ïͽ´Î½ ÏÏλιν κοÏμÎÏν καλͿ¶Ï Ïε καͽ¶ εͽ.
20 Thuc. 6.54.5: καͽ¶ ͼÏεÏÎ®Î´ÎµÏ Ïαν ͼÏͽ¶ ÏλεͿÏÏον δͽ´ ÏÏÏαννοι οͽÏοι ͼÏεÏͽ´Î½ καͽ¶ ξÏνεÏιν, καͽ¶ Í¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±Î¯Î¿Ï Ï ÎµÍ¼°ÎºÎ¿ÏÏͽ´Î½ μÏνον ÏÏαÏÏÏμενοι ÏÍ¿¶Î½ γιγνομÎνÏν Ïήν Ïε ÏÏλιν αͽÏÍ¿¶Î½ καλͿ¶Ï διεκÏÏμηÏαν καͽ¶ ÏοͽºÏ ÏολÎÎ¼Î¿Ï Ï Î´Î¹ÎÏεÏον καͽ¶ Í¼Ï Ïͽ° ͼ±ÎµÏͽ° Í¼Î¸Ï Î¿Î½. Contrast Hdt. 5.78: εͼ° καͽ¶ ͼθηναͿοι ÏÏ ÏÎ±Î½Î½ÎµÏ Ïμενοι μͽ²Î½ οͽδαμͿ¶Î½ ÏÍ¿¶Î½ ÏÏÎÎ±Ï ÏεÏιοικεÏνÏÏν ͼ¦Ïαν Ïͽ° ÏολÎμια ͼμείνονεÏ, ͼÏαλλαÏθÎνÏÎµÏ Î´Í½² ÏÏ ÏάννÏν μακÏÍ¿· ÏÏÍ¿¶Ïοι ͼγÎνονÏο. For the military achievements of Peisistratos, see in detail Lavelle (2005).
21 Hdt. 5.55.1, 5.62.1-2, 5.63.2, 5.64.2, 5.65.5, 5.78, 5.91.1, 5.91.2, 5.93.2: freedom vocabulary. For the connection of freedom with democracy, see Raaflaub (2004: 203-225). For the role of freedom in the narratives of the two historians, see Tamiolaki (2010: 223-228, 233-238).
22 Hornblower (2008: 443), commenting on the expression ͼÏͽ¸ ÏÍ¿Ï Í½ÏαÏÏοÏÏÎ·Ï Í¼Î¾Î¹ÏÏεÏÏ (as far as his class allowed, Thuc. 6.54.2): âTh. Here suggests that an ideological motive was present after all.â
23 See Sancisi-Weerdenburg (2000) for the idea that Thucydidesâ emphasis results from an anachronistic effort to provide tyranny with a âconstitutionalâ dimension. Cf. also Rhodes (2006: 528): âIn making Hippias the sole ruler, Thucydides perhaps mistakes the nature of a family tyranny and it may be better to think of a joint rule but with Hippias playing the leading part.â Lavelle (1993: 63-64) acutely remarks that Thucydides relies on the εͼ°ÎºÏÏ to prove that Hippias was the eldest brother, which is, however, according to Thucydidesâ own methodology, the second best way to prove a thesis (if compared with ÏεκμήÏια or ÏημεͿα).
24 For Herodotusâ reticence on Greek homosexuality, see Hornblower (2008: 436-437).
25 Arist. Ath. Pol. 14.4, with Dover (1970: 320). Cf. Thomas (1989: 282): âHe (scil. Herodotus) succeeded in producing a far more complex and detailed account of the âliberationâ itself than we would expect from any one source.â
26 For other attempts to interpret these contradictions, see Dover (1970: 326-329).
27 Hornblower (2008: 434), who minimizes the polemical tone, by noting that it emerges only at the beginning and end of the digression, the rest of the narrative being rather entertaining. However, the fact that Thucydides resumes again vehemently reminds the reader of his polemical stance.
28 Thatâs why Doverâs assertion (Dover 1970: 328) that âwhat Thucydides meant by ͼκÏιβͽ²Ï οͽδͽ²Î½ λÎγονÏÎ±Ï was that some elements in Athenian opinion on the Peisistratidai were falseâ¦â does not solve the problem, since the question remains: if Thucydides did not mean this, why did he write it?
29 See now Azoulay (2014).
30 The most famous skolion about the tyrannicides is transmitted by Athenaios: ͼν μÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ»Î±Î´Í½¶ Ïͽ¸ ξίÏÎ¿Ï ÏοÏήÏÏ,/ͽ¥ÏÏÎµÏ Í¼ÏμÏÎ´Î¹Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Í½¶ ͼÏιÏÏογείÏÏν,/ͽ Ïε Ïͽ¸Î½ ÏÏÏαννον κÏανÎÏην/ͼ°ÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Ï Ï' Í¼Î¸Î®Î½Î±Ï Í¼ÏοιηÏάÏην (Ath. Deipn. 15.50.60-62, PMG 895). For the various traditions on the tyrannicides circulating in Athens, see Thomas (1989: 238-282).
31 Herodotus overtly expresses his own opinion about the liberation of Athens from tyranny, by attributing it (though with some reserve) to the Alkmeonidai (Hdt. 6.123.2), an opinion which parallels his description of the events.
32 In this part of my paper I propose the joint examination of two issues, which have thus far been treated separately in modern scholarship: a) the connections of the prologue with the digression of the sixth book and b) the Herodotean features of Thucydidesâ digression. Scholars who have treated the first topic (such as Tsakmakis, Meyer and Grethlein) have overlooked the second, while Simon Hornblower, who has analyzed in detail the Herodotean features of Thucydidesâ digression, has not dwelt on the connections with the prologue. In my opinion, Thucydidesâ digression can be better evaluated only when the implications of both these topics are born in mind.
33 See further Meyer (2008: 26-34), Grethlein (2010: 228-220).
34 See also Tsakmakis (1996: 211).
35 Thuc. 6.54.6: καͽ¶ ͼλλοι Ïε αͽÏÍ¿¶Î½ ͼ¦Ïξαν Ïͽ´Î½ ͼνιαÏÏιον Í¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï Í¼ÏÏͽ´Î½ καͽ¶ ΠειÏίÏÏÏαÏÎ¿Ï Í½ ͼ¹ÏÏÎ¯Î¿Ï ÏοͿ¦ ÏÏ ÏαννεÏÏανÏÎ¿Ï Ï Í¼±ÏÏ, ÏοͿ¦ ÏάÏÏÎ¿Ï Í¼ÏÏν Ïοͽνομαâ¦; cf. Hdt. 5.67.1: ΤαͿ¦Ïα δÎ, δοκÎειν ͼμοί, ͼμιμÎεÏο ͽ ÎλειÏθÎÎ½Î·Ï Î¿Í½ÏÎ¿Ï Ïͽ¸Î½ ͼÏÏ ÏοͿ¦ μηÏÏοÏάÏοÏα ÎλειÏθÎνεα Ïͽ¸Î½ Î£Î¹ÎºÏ Í¿¶Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏÏαννον.). Hornblower (2008) notes that this is a general technique of naming in Herodotus. But it is interesting that this technique is also used in the narrative about the liberation from tyranny.
36 For these elements, see in more detail Hornblower (2008: 435-436).
37 Îgain, I note the smaller digressions in italics.
6.54-59: the killing of the âtyrantâ in Athens
6.54.5-7: digression about the achievements of the tyrants
6.55.1-4: digression about Hippias being the eldest of the two brothers
38 For the importance of rivalry and polemic in historiography, see Marincola (1997).
Bibliography
Azoulay, V. (2014) Les tyrannicides dâAthͨnes. Vie et mort de deux statues, Paris. [ Links ]
Connor, W. R. (1984) Thucydides, Princeton. [ Links ]
Dewald, C. (2003) âForm and Content: the Question of Tyranny in Herodotusâ, in Morgan, K. (ed.), Popular Tyranny. Sovereignty and its Discontents, Austin: 25-58. [ Links ]
Giorgini, G. (1993) La cittÍ e il tiranno. Il concetto di tirannide nella Grecia del VII-IV secolo a.c., Milano. [ Links ]
Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A. & Dover K. J. (1970) A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, vol. IV, Oxford. [ Links ]
Gray, V. (2007) âStructure and Significance (5.55-69)â, in Irwin, E. & Greenwood, E. (eds.) Reading Herodotus. A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotusâ Histories, Cambridge: 202-215. [ Links ]
Grene, D. (1987) The History. Herodotus, Chicago/London. [ Links ]
Grethlein, J. (2010) The Greeks and their Past, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Hornblower, S. (2008) A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 3, Oxford. [ Links ]
Hornblower, S. (2013) Herodotus, Book V, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Hunter, V. (1973/74) âAthens Tyrannis: A New Approach to Thucydidesâ, CJ 69: 120-126. [ Links ]
Immerwahr, H. R. (1966) Form and Thought in Herodotus, Cleveland. [ Links ]
Jacoby, F. (1949) Atthis, Oxford. [ Links ]
Lattimore, S. (1988) The Peloponnesian War, Indianapolis/Cambridge. [ Links ]
Lavelle, B. M. (1993) The Sorrow and the Pity. A Prolegomenon to a History of Athens under the Peisistratids, c. 560-510 B.C., Stuttgart. [ Links ]
Lavelle, B. M. (2005) Fame, Money, and Power. The Rise of Peisistratos and âDemocraticâ Tyranny at Athens, Ann Arbor. [ Links ]
Lewis, D. M. (21988) âThe Tyranny of the Pisistratidaeâ, in Boardman, J., Hammond, N. G. L. & Lewis, D. M. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4, Cambridge: 288-301. [ Links ]
Lewis, S. (2009) Greek Tyranny, Exeter. [ Links ]
Libero de, L. (1996) Die archaische Tyrannis, Stuttgart. [ Links ]
Marincola, J. (1997) Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, Cambridge. [ Links ]
McGlew, J. (1993) Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece, Ithaca. [ Links ]
Meyer, E. A. (2008) âThucydides on Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Tyranny, and Historyâ, CQ 58/1:13-34. [ Links ]
D. L. Page, D. L. (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. [ Links ]
Pothou, V. (2009) La place et le rÍ´le de la digression dans lâÅuvre de Thucydide, Stuttgart.
Rhodes, P. J. (2006) âThucydides and Athenian Historyâ, in Rengakos, A. & Tsakmakis, A. (eds.), Brillâs Companion to Thucydides, Leiden/Boston: 523-545. [ Links ]
Raaflaub, K. A. (2004) The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, Chicago. [ Links ]
Rood, T. (1998) Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation, Oxford. [ Links ]
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (2000) âThe Tyranny of Peisistratosâ, in id. (ed.), Peisistratos and the Tyranny. A Reappraisal of the Evidence, Amsterdam: 1-15. [ Links ]
Smith, J. A. (1989) Athens Under the Tyrants, Bristol. [ Links ]
Stahl, H.-P. (2003) Thucydides. Manâs Place in History, Swansea. [ Links ]
Tamiolaki, M. (2010) Liberté et esclavage chez les historiens grecs classiques, Paris. [ Links ]
Thomas, R. (1989) Oral tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Tsakmakis, A. (1996) âThukydides VI.54.1 und Herodotâ, Philologus 140: 201-213. [ Links ]
WÄcowski, M. (2000) Lâauxͪsis dâAthͨnes. Hérodote, Thucydide et un aspect de lâidéologie athénienne du Ve siͨcle av. J.-C., PhD., EHESS, Paris. [ Links ]