Death to Tyrants! (32 page)

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;
IEryth
McCabe 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, following 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

Engelmann and Merkelbach offered an interpretation of the oligarchs' treatment of the statue that is based on their translation of the phrase (lines 5–6) “
νομίζοντες καθόλου τὴν στάσιν
|
καθ᾿ αὑτῶν εἶναι
.” They translate that phrase as follows: “weil sie meinten, der Zwist sei jedenfalls zu ihrem Vorteil.” Engelmann and Merkelbach thus supposed that the oligarchs removed the sword in order to provoke conflict (stasis) between their domestic opponents. Democrats, that is, would attack supporters of tyranny in the belief that they had vandalized the statue of the democratic hero. And members of the tyrannical faction would retaliate. Members of the oligarchic faction might then take advantage of the chaos and seize control of the polis. Thus the conflict (stasis) would be to their benefit (
καθ᾿ αὑτῶν
).

Engelmann and Merkelbach's explanation for the oligarch's treatment of the statue is not persuasive. To begin with, the preposition
κατά
(
καθ᾿
in the inscription) plus a noun in the genitive case (here, the
αὑτῶν
) almost always means “against”—not “for the benefit of.”
¹⁴
Second, the noun stasis (which they translate as “Zwist”), when used in reference to a statue, almost certainly means placement, erection, or stance; and one should note in this regard that the verb
ἵστημι
(from which the noun stasis is derived) was regularly used—including in Erythrai—in the phrase “to set up a statue.”
¹⁵
Thus the phrase
νομίζοντες καθόλου τὴν στάσιν καθ᾿ αὑτῶν εἶναι
should be translated “thinking that the placement [of the statue] is entirely against them.” Engelmann and Merkelbach's theory thus collapses.

Josiah Ober's interpretation of the oligarchs' manipulation of the statue is predicated on the fact that democrats tended to consider any nondemocratic regime to be a “tyranny.”
¹⁶
Thus Ober suggests that the Erythraian oligarchs removed the sword but allowed the statue to stand as part of a well-intended attempt to challenge that overly simplified and potentially dangerous bipolar political taxonomy. On the one hand, oligarchs, according to this explanation, agreed with the democrats that tyranny is harmful to the polis: thus they allowed the statue of the tyrant killer to stand. Yet, on the other hand, they asserted that (moderate) oligarchy is not tyranny and is, in fact, beneficial for the polis: thus they took out Philites's sword aimed entirely “against them” (i.e., against oligarchs and thus oligarchy). The oligarchs' treatment of the statue would thus be an appeal to the political center in order to end conflict by marginalizing, and thus rendering impotent, all extremists, tyrannical and democratic.

Ober's explanation is quite interesting but not entirely convincing. The first weakness is that it is not in sympathy with the basic dynamic of a standard stasis situation in a Greek polis. Generally speaking, one would expect to find the two opposing sides locked in a zero-sum game for control of the polis: thus the losers are killed or exiled by the victor. Such behavior in a stasis situation was on display in
chapters 1
(Athens), 2 (Eretria), and 4 (Eresos); and—importantly—the citizens of Erythrai certainly had experience of such behavior.
¹⁷
It is perhaps best to assume, then, without evidence
to the contrary, that significant political actions in a stasis situation are motivated by a desire to dominate, not a desire to reconcile or compromise.
¹⁸
The second weakness in Ober's interpretation is that it is too complicated. The simplest—and one would think most probable—interpretation is that the oligarchs were straightforwardly insulting Philites and, by extension, the democrats. That interpretation would avoid the rather sophisticated interpretive move whereby the sword's symbolic significance is separated from the symbolic significance of the rest of the statue. And one might also note that if the manipulation of the statue were not meant to insult moderate democrats, the oligarchs presumably would not have neglected the statue and allowed it to gather verdigris.