In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

K U R T A . R A A F L A U B S T I C K A N D G L U E : T H E F U N C T I O N O F T Y R A N N Y I N F I F T H - C E N T U R Y A T H E N I A N D E M O C R A C Y ‘‘Popular Tyranny’’ can mean either tyranny that is popular or tyranny by the populus, the people. Both aspects are relevant for my present investigation. I will argue for three points. First, in their capacity as citizens, Athenians in the second half of the fifth century were accustomed to thinking of tyranny in a very negative way, although privately many of them might have held different views and we know that elite circles disgruntled with democracy did so. If we talk of ‘‘popularity of tyranny,’’ we thus mean an elite and dissident phenomenon or one rooted in popular culture.1 These aspects are explored further in this volume by Lisa Kallet, Jeffrey Henderson, and Josiah Ober. For my present purpose, it is important to distinguish rather sharply between public and private, official and personal, although in reality these perspectives may often have overlapped or been somewhat blurred. My focus here is strictly on the Athenians’ official views and self-representation, their political ideology. Second, this official, negative concept of tyranny played a useful, perhaps even indispensable, role in providing the citizens with a contrast against which they defined their shared civic identity and virtues. This was especially important in a system that was unprecedented and remained extraordinary (hence ‘‘glue’’ in my title). Third, because the citizens, conditioned by decades of antityrannical ideology , were broadly familiar with this negative concept of tyranny, it offered itself to easy use in comparison and metaphor, culminating in the concept of ‘‘tyranny by the people,’’ as it was expressed in slogans such as dēmos tyrannos and polis tyrannos. Such slogans, like the earlier and more general accusation of tyrannical behavior, were powerful tools with which skilled demagogues could attack and discredit their opponents or ‘‘whip’’ the citizens into ac59 cepting their proposals and rejecting those of their rivals (hence ‘‘stick’’ in my title). Even in such metaphorical use, therefore, ‘‘tyranny’’ was normally understood negatively. Ironically, according to a view not uncommon in recent scholarship, what I am proposing to discuss here is a virtual nonissue. For example, the entry ‘‘tyranny’’ in the new Oxford Classical Dictionary mentions only ‘‘real’’ tyrants. The index of volume  of the new Cambridge Ancient History refers under ‘‘tyranny’’ to the Peisistratids, Sicily, and cultural influences of tyrants but mentions nothing under lemmata such as polis, democracy, demos, empire, or imperialism (the latter two do not even exist there). John Davies’ Democracy and Classical Greece is interested in tyrants only as fourth-century ‘‘opportunists ,’’ while the volume on Classical Greece in the Nouvelle Clio series, edited by Pierre Briant and Pierre Lévêque, and Christian Meier’s important ‘‘portrait of Athens’’ are concerned with tyranny and the Tyrannicides but not with the issues to be discussed here. Even Jochen Bleicken’s comprehensive analysis of democracy and Russell Meiggs’ authoritative history of the Athenian empire offer no more than brief references in passing. To be sure, others have taken the matter more seriously: for instance, Martin Ostwald and Vincent Rosivach discuss the role of tyranny in domestic politics, James McGlew considers it vital for the self-perception of the Athenian citizens, and the interpretation of polis tyrannos has prompted a variety of analyses, although in his review of this issue, Christopher Tuplin insists that the most remarkable aspect of the phenomenon is precisely its rareness and unimportance .2 Overall, then, a new look at this complex problem seems overdue. I begin with a few general comments on tyranny, limiting myself to aspects that are important for my investigation.3 Tyrants played a significant role in Greece from roughly the mid seventh to the late sixth century and again, at least in certain areas, in the fourth century.4 ‘‘Tyranny’’ is an umbrella term used both in antiquity and by modern scholars for a variety of types of sole rule with different origins and characteristics.5 It was originally and could always be used indiscriminately with other terms for monarchy (especially basileia, kingship). A precise and...

Share