Tyrannus
（
τύραννος). In the Heroic Age all the governments in Greece
were monarchical, the king uniting in himself the functions of the priest, the judge, and
military chief. In the first two or three centuries following the Trojan War various causes
were at work, which led to the abolition, or at least to the limitation, of the kingly power.
Emigrations, extinctions of families, disasters in war, civil dissensions, may be reckoned
among these causes. Hereditary monarchies became elective; the different functions of the king
were distributed; he was called Archon (
ἄρχων), Cosmus
(
κόσμος), or Prytanis (
πρύτανις), instead of Basileus (
βασιλεύς), and
his character was changed no less than his name. Noble and wealthy families began to be
considered on a footing of equality with royalty; and thus in process of time sprang up
oligarchies or aristocracies, which most of the governments that succeeded the ancient
monarchies were in point of fact, though not as yet called by such names. These oligarchies
did not possess the elements of social happiness or stability. The principal families
contended with each other for the greatest share of power, and were only unanimous in
disregarding the rights of those whose station was beneath their own. The people, oppressed by
the privileged classes, began to regret the loss of their old paternal form of government, and
were ready to assist any one who would attempt to restore it. Thus were opportunities offered
to ambitious and designing men to raise themselves by starting up as the champions of popular
rights. Discontented nobles were soon found to prosecute schemes of this sort, and they had a
greater chance of success if descended from the ancient royal family. An example is
Pisistratus, who was the more acceptable to the people of Athens as being a descendant of the
family of Codrus. Thus in many cities arose that species of monarchy which the Greeks called
tyrannis (
τυραννίς), which meant only a
despotism, or the irresponsible dominion of one man. This very frequently was nothing more
than a revival of the ancient government, and, though unaccompanied with any recognized
hereditary title, or the reverence attached to old name and long prescription, was hailed by
the lower orders of people as a good exchange, after suffering under the domination of the
oligarchy. All “tyrannies,” however, were not so acceptable to the
majority; and sometimes we find the nobles concurring in the elevation of a despot, to further
their own interests. Thus the Syracusan
Gamori, who had been expelled by the
populace, on receiving the protection of Gelon, sovereign of Gela and Camarina, enabled him to
take possession of Syracuse, and establish his kingdom there. Sometimes
the conflicting parties in the State, by mutual consent, chose some eminent man, in whom they
had confidence, to reconcile their dissensions, investing him with a sort of dictatorial power
for that purpose, either for a limited period or otherwise. Such a person they called
aesymnetes (
αἰσυμνήτης). The
tyrannus must be distinguished, on the one hand, from the
aesymnetes, inasmuch as he was not elected by general consent, but commonly owed his
elevation to some violent movement or stratagem, such as the creation of a body-guard for him
by the people, or the seizure of the citadel; and, on the other hand, from the ancient king,
whose right depended, not on usurpation, but on inheritance and traditionary acknowledgment.
The power of a king might be more absolute than that of a “tyrant,” as
Phidon of Argos is said to have made the royal prerogative greater than it was under his
predecessors; yet he was still regarded as a king, for the difference between the two names
depended upon title and origin, and not on the manner in which the power was exercised. The
name “tyrant” was originally so far from denoting a person who abused his
power, or treated his subjects with cruelty, that Pisistratus is praised for the moderation of
his government. Afterwards, when “tyrants” themselves had become odious,
the name also grew to be a word of reproach, just as
rex did among the
Romans. Among the early “tyrants” of Greece those most worthy of mention
are: Clisthenes of Sicyon, grandfather of the Athenian Clisthenes, in whose family the
government continued for a century from its establishment by Orthagoras, about B.C. 672;
Cypselus of Corinth, who expelled the Bacchiadae, B.C. 656, and his son Periander, both
remarkable for their cruelty; their dynasty lasted between seventy and eighty years; Procles
of Epidaurus; Pantaleon of Pisa, who celebrated the thirty-fourth Olympiad, depriving the
Eleans of the presidency; Theagenes of Megara, father-inlaw to Cylon the Athenian; and
Pisistratus, whose sons were the last of the early “tyrants” on the
Grecian continent. In Sicily, where “tyranny” most flourished, the
principal were Phalaris of Agrigentum, who established his power in B.C. 568; Theron of
Agrigentum; Gelon, already mentioned, who, in conjunction with Theron, defeated Hamilcar the
Carthaginian, on the same day on which the battle of Salamis was fought; and Hieron, his
brother: the last three celebrated by Pindar. The following also are worthy of notice:
Polycrates of Samos, Lygdamis of Naxos, Histiaeus and Aristagoras of Miletus. Perhaps the last
mentioned can hardly be classed among the Greek “tyrants,” as they were
connected with the Persian monarchy.
The general characteristics of a “tyranny” were, that it was bound by no
laws, and had no recognized limitation to its authority, however it might be restrained in
practice by the good disposition of the “tyrant” himself, or by fear, or
by the spirit of the age. It was commonly most odious to the wealthy and noble, whom the
“tyrant” looked upon with jealousy as a check upon his power, and whom he
often sought to get rid of by sending them into exile or putting them to death. The
“tyrant” usually kept a body-guard of foreign mercenaries, by aid of whom
he controlled the people at home; but he seldom ventured to make war, for fear of giving an
opportunity to his subjects to revolt. The causes which led to the decline of
“tyranny” among the Greeks were partly the degeneracy of the
“tyrants” themselves, corrupted by power, indolence, flattery, and bad
education; for even where the father set a good example, it was seldom followed by the son;
partly the cruelties and excesses of particular men, which brought them all into disrepute;
and partly the growing spirit of inquiry among the Greek people, who began to speculate upon
political theories, and soon became discontented with a form of government which had nothing
in theory, and little in practice, to recommend it. Few dynasties lasted beyond the third
generation. Most of the tyrannies which flourished before the Persian War are said to have
been overthrown by the exertions of Sparta, jealous, probably, of any innovation upon the old
Doric constitution, especially of any tendency to ameliorate the condition of the Perioeci,
and anxious to extend her own influence over the States of Greece by means of the benefits
which she conferred. Upon the fall of “tyranny” the various republican
forms of government were established, the Dorian States generally favouring oligarchy, the
Ionian democracy. Of the “tyrants” of a later period, the most celebrated
are the two Dionysii. The corruption of the Syracusans, their intestine discords, and the fear
of the Carthaginian invaders, led to the appointment of Dionysius to the chief military
command, with unlimited powers; by means of which he raised himself to the throne B.C. 406,
and reigned for thirty-eight years, leaving his son to succeed him. The younger Dionysius, far
inferior in every respect to his father, was expelled by Dion, afterwards regained the throne,
and was again expelled by Timoleon, who restored liberty to the various States of Sicily.
See Plaes,
Die Tyrannis in ihren beiden Perioden bei den alten Griechen
(Bremen, 1852); Drumann,
De Tyrannis Graecorum (Halle,
1812); Schömann,
Griech. Alterth. i. pp. 169 foll.; Zeller in
Berichte der Berl. Acad. (1885); and the articles
Oligarchia;
Timocratia.
