Death to Tyrants! (28 page)

The third important phase of the trial is the application of the punishment. The texts do not indicate how the two men were executed; they just state that the citizens of Eresos were to vote to determine the manner of execution (text 1, lines 19–27; text 2, lines 17–20). It certainly would be helpful for this section's argument if the tyrants were executed publically in front of a large and cheering crowd. One might note, in this regard, Polybios's opinion about what
should
have happened to Aristomachos, the tyrant of Megalopolis: “He should have been led round the whole Peloponnesus and tortured as a deterrent spectacle” (2.60.7).
²¹
And it is certainly reasonable to suppose that the Eresians wanted everybody to see for himself the harsh fate that awaits tyrants. According to Plutarch (
Tim
. 34), for example, the people of Messana brought their children to the theater to witness the torture and execution of their former tyrant Hippo. Regardless of the manner of their execution, however, the execution, banishment of family, and confiscation of property would have demonstrated to all—and was thus made common knowledge—that the pro-democratic majority will back up the threats codified in their anti-tyranny law; they will defend their democracy.

After the trial was completed, the Eresians inscribed the indictments, a description of the trial's procedure, and the verdict on a stone stele that was almost certainly placed in a conspicuous location. That act of commemoration performed a very important service: it maintained as common knowledge the widespread commitment to defend the democracy and enforce the anti-tyranny law—the commitment that was made in the trial. If nothing were done to retain the memory of the trial, people might soon wonder whether or not the pro-democrats were still fully committed to defending their regime. Should there be such doubt, individuals would be less certain that, should they act in defense of the democracy, a sufficient number of individuals would follow them. They would thus raise their revolutionary thresholds, thereby undermining the pro-democrats' threat credibility. But the presence of the stone stele worked against such “memory decay.” Just seeing
the stone maintained the common knowledge of the trial, of course. And citizens in various political settings could refer to the stone and what it represented. The message: “We all know that we are still committed.” As a result, each individual would maintain his (post-trial) relatively low revolutionary threshold and the credibility of the pro-democrats' threat would thereby be upheld.

The tyranny trials were a major, complex political event in Eresos's history and thus might be viewed from a number of perspectives. From a symbolic perspective, the trials constituted a collective act of “tyrannicide” and thus placed the refoundation of their democracy within a well-established political narrative. In this light, it is interesting to compare the tyrannicide in Eresos with that of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (the tyrannicide model). Harmodios and Aristogeiton individually killed a tyrant and the Athenians subsequently erected statues of the two that proudly displayed how they killed the tyrants and thereby brought democracy to Athens. In the case of Eresos, the community of citizens killed the tyrants. Thus the Eresians erected a symbol of the democratic community: a stele. And it, too, indicated how the tyrants were killed: by a trial.

Viewed from another perspective, the tyranny trials laid the foundation for the rule of law in democratic Eresos. The Eresians were likely tempted to murder Agonippos and Eurysilaos right away, in which case they would have been, essentially, a lynch mob that got the right men.
²²
The dossier, however, emphasizes the democratic principles of the rule of law and established procedure—that is, principles of governmental restraint. And the trial of Agonippos and Eurysilaos was a particularly good object lesson: (1) those two would have been considered the least deserving of a trial according to the laws; (2) the correct outcome was reached: a guilty verdict and subsequent execution. The trial thus built respect for law and the institution of the
dikasterion
. The system “worked.”

The significance of such interpretations notwithstanding, the primary function of the tyranny trials was to establish the democrats' threat credibility and thus deter anti-democrats from staging a coup. We must remember that, at the time of the trials, the Eresian pro-democrats had only recently reestablished their regime. And it is reasonable to assume that there were individuals who wanted the democracy to fail. Thus the dominant question of the day must have been, are the pro-democrats sufficiently committed to defend their regime? The trials, like Athens's oath of Demophantos, were the mechanism whereby they generated and publicized that commitment. As a result, an individual could be reasonably sure that, if he acted to defend the new regime, others would follow him.

Basis of the New Game Questioned

This section interprets the historical significance of the actions recorded in texts 3, 4, and 5 of the dossier. The texts and translations are of Rhodes and Osborne.
²³

TEXT 3

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 36

[ἔ]γνω δᾶμ[ο]ς. περὶ ὦν οἰ πρέσβεες ἀπαγγέλλοισ[ι]

[ο]ἰ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ἀποστάλεντες καὶ Ἀλέ-

35  
ξανδρος τὰν διαγράφαν ἀπέπεμψε· ἀφικομέ-

νων πρὸς αὖτον τῶν 〈τῶν〉 πρότερον τυράννων ἀπογ[ό]-

νων Ἡρωίδα τε τῶ Τερτικωνείω τῶ Ἠραείω κα[ὶ Ἀ]-

γησιμένεος τῶ Ἐρμησιδείω, καὶ ἐπαγγελλα[νέ]-

[ν]ων πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ὄτι ἔτοιμοί ἐστι δίκ[αν]

40  
[ὐ]ποσκέθην περὶ τῶν ἐγκαλημένων ἐν τῶ δά[μω]·

[ἀγάθα τύχα δ]έ[δο]χ̣θ̣[αι] τῶ δάμω· ἐπειδ̣ὴ̣ ἀ̣[ --6-- ]

-----------------------

TEXT 3, CONCLUDED

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 17

[-------- c. 14 -------- ποή|σασθαι δὲ καὶ ἐπάραν | ἐν τᾶ ἐκλησία αὔτι|κα

τῶ μὲν δικ]α̣ίω [ὐπ|άρχο]ντι καὶ βαθόεν|[τι τᾶ] πόλει καὶ

5    
τοῖς | [νόμο]ισι τᾶ δικαία εὖ || [ἔμμε]ναι καὶ αὔτοισι | [καὶ ἐκγόνοισι],

τῶ δὲ | [πα]ρὰ τοὶς νόμοις κα[ὶ] | τὰ δίκαια δικαζόν|τεσσι τὰ

10  
ἐνάντια. ὄ||μνυν δὲ τοὶς πολίτ̣[αις] | τοὶς δικάζοντας· | [ν]αὶ

δικάσσω τὰν [δί̣καν | ὄ]σσα μὲν ἐν τοῖς [νό|μ]οισι ἔνι κὰτ τοὶ[ς

15  
νό||μο]ις, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἐκ̣ [φιλο|π]ονίας ὠς ἄριστα κ[αὶ | δ]ικαι〈ό〉τατα·

καὶ τιμά|[σ]ω, αἴ κε κατάγνω, ὄρθω[ς] | κ̣αὶ δι〈καί〉ως. οὔτω ποήσω||

20  
ναὶ μὰ Δία καὶ Ἄλιον.

The
damos
decided. Concerning what is reported by the envoys sent to Alexander, and Alexander sent back his transcript; when there arrived before him the descendants of the former tyrants, Heroidas son of Tertikon son of
Heraios and Agesimenes son of Hermesidas, and they offered to Alexander that they were willing to submit to judgment before the
damos
concerning the charges: For good fortune be it resolved by the
damos
: Since … A solemn prayer shall be made in the assembly immediately, that with one who is just and supports the city and the laws with a just vote it may be well, both with him and with his descendants, but with one who judges contrary to the laws and justice the opposite. The citizens who are judging shall swear: “I shall judge the case, as far as it lies within the laws, according to the laws, and in other respects industriously, as well and as justly as possible; and if I condemn I shall assess rightly and justly. I shall do this, by Zeus and Sun.”

TEXT 4

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 17

vac.
Φιλλίπω.
vac
. | αἱ μὲν κατὰ τῶν φυγά|δων κρίσεις αἱ κριθε[ί]|σαι

25  
ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου || κύριαι ἔστωσαν. καὶ | [ὧ]ν κατέγνω φυγὴν

φε[υ|γ]έτωσαμ μέν, ἀγώγιμο[ι] | δὲ μὴ ἔστωσαν.
vac
.

Of Philip. The trials of the exiles tried by Alexander shall be valid; and those whom he condemned to death shall be exiled but shall not be liable to seizure.

TEXT 5

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 17

30  
πρότανις Μελίδωρος. || βασιλεὺς Ἀντίγονος | Ἐρεσίων τῆι βουλῆι|

35  
καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. | παρεγένοντο πρὸς ἡ|μᾶς οἱ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν πρέ[σ]||β̣εις

καὶ διελέγοντ[ο], | φάμενοι τὸν δῆμον | κομισάμενον τὴν παρ᾿ [ἡ]|μῶν

40  
ἐπιστολὴν ἣν ἐγρ[ά|ψ]αμεν ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἀγωνίπ||[π]ου υἱῶν ψήφισμά

τε π[οι|ήσ]ασθαι, ὃ ἀνέγνωσα[ν | ἡμῖ]ν, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἀπε|[σταλκέναι] . .

λσ[ --c.5 --]|-------------

TEXT 5, CONCLUDED

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 36

1    
[ …. δη]μο . ηκ[-----------15-----------ἐ]πὶ τῆ[ι …. ]

[-----------------23-----------------]ν̣ Ἀ̣λεξάν[δρωι ἐν]-

τυγ[χ]άν[ετε-----------16----------] ἔρρωσ[θε].
vac
.

Prytanis Melidoros. King Antigonos to the council and
dēmos
of Eresos, greetings. The envoys from you came before us and made speeches, saying that the
dēmos
had received from us the letter which we wrote about the sons of Agonippos and had passed a decree, which they read to us, and had sent them …
dēmos
… you encounter Alexander (?) … Farwell.

These texts document three failed attempts by descendants of tyrants to return to Eresos in the years after the trial of Agonippos and Eurysilaos. The first attempt (recorded in text 3) likely came in the wake of Alexander's famous “exile decree” of 324 (Diod. Sic. 18.8.2–5). Upon hearing of the decree, descendants—grandsons—of the “former tyrants” apparently traveled to meet with the king in order to ascertain whether or not they could end their period of exile. The Eresian
dēmos
, in response, sent envoys to Alexander to explain why the descendants should not be allowed to return. Presumably to counter the Eresians' response, the exiles expressed their willingness to stand trial in order to determine whether or not they would be allowed return home.
²⁴
Alexander thus sent a transcript ordering the Eresians to conduct a trial on the matter. The exiles, as revealed in text 6 of the dossier, lost their case.

The second failed attempt (recorded in text 4) likely came in the wake of King Philip Arrhidaios's exile proclamation of 319 (Diod. Sic. 18.56.1–8). Announced in the tough, chaotic times of the early period of Alexander's successors (the
diadochoi
), this text too ordered exiles—except those exiled for blood guilt or impiety, and certain named individuals—to return to their native poleis. Apparently, although not explicitly stated in the dossier, the same descendants who tried and failed to return to Eresos five years earlier requested permission from Philip to return.
²⁵
In response, the Eresians most likely sent envoys once again to officially contest the exiles' request. And Philip acquiesced to the
dēmos
, issuing a transcript that slightly altered Alexander's decision of 324: the descendants of the former tyrants were to remain in exile, but they would no longer be susceptible to arrest.

The particular context for the third attempt (recorded in text 5) is not known. The letter, however, must have been written between 306 (when Antigonos assumed the title of king) and 301 (when Antigonos died). Antigonos is not known to have issued an exile decree, but it is certainly possible that he did so. It is also possible that the descendants of Agonippos thought that the new king might acquiesce to an individual request not pursuant to a royal proclamation. In any case, it appears that King Antigonos wrote a letter to the Eresians in their support.
²⁶
In response, the
dēmos
of Eresos passed a decree that their ambassadors read to the king. The content of that decree is
not known, but it almost certainly both praised the king and requested that the descendants of Agonippos not be allowed to return to Eresos. King Antigonos granted their request.

THE PROBLEM

It is quite clear that the Eresians were concerned with the prospect of the exiles' return home. The basis of that concern, however, is not clear. What were the Eresian democrats so worried about?

To understand the basis of their concern, it first is important to realize that pro-democrats likely would interpret the exiles' return as an indication that the exiles had strong political support from the king. The key point here, of course, is that the king would have personally granted the permission—the exiles went directly to him. Pro-democrats thus would naturally have wondered why the king overruled their earlier decisions. And it would have been reasonable to conclude, even if incorrectly, that the exiles and the king cut some sort of deal whereby Eresos would be governed by a “pro-monarch,” nondemocratic regime—a regime in which the exiles would play an important role. First, why would the king grant the exiles' (descendants of tyrants, it must be remembered) request in the first place? Second, some kings (e.g., Lysimachos) were known to support oligarchy.
²⁷
And finally, the exiles likely had supporters in the city: they likely would not have wanted to return if they had no supporters; seven people had the courage to vote for the acquittal of Agonippos and Eurysilaos (that might suggest deeper support for a nondemocratic regime); in text 2 (lines 20–22), concern is expressed that someone might propose the recall of the tyrants' descendants; in text 6 (lines 35–39), concern is expressed that the descendants of former tyrants might somehow return to Eresos.