Death to Tyrants! (29 page)

If there was even the perception that the king supported the exiles, the democrats' threat credibility would have been diminished and the recently established democratic equilibrium potentially jeopardized. The democrats' threat required individuals to believe that, should they risk their lives to defend the democracy, a sufficient number of additional individuals would follow them. If the exiles returned, however, people would reasonably conclude that others would not follow them, should they defend the democracy in response to a coup attempt: it would be foolish to (potentially) confront the king. And it is important to note that, even if it an individual doubted that the king actually would support an anti-democratic coup, he might think that other Eresians believed that he would. Thus individual pro-democrats would raise their personal revolutionary thresholds; a greater number people would now have to defend the democracy before they do. And if that dynamic were perceived, the democrats' threat would not be deemed credible and the anti-democrats
would be more likely to defect and reestablish a nondemocratic regime.

THE SOLUTION

The democrats had to respond to these challenges vigorously. They had to ensure the exiles' attempt to return would not result in individual democrats raising their revolutionary thresholds and thus diminishing the credibility of their collective threat.

In each of the instances, the democrats' response consisted of two complementary parts. First, they generated common knowledge of continued widespread credible commitment to defend the democracy (i.e., to enforce their anti-tyranny law). They achieved that end by means of both a thorough discussion of the matter in the citizen assembly—gathered as a law court in the first instance—and a concluding vote. Like in the original trial of Agonippos and Eurysilaos, the pre-vote discussion ensured that every citizen was fully aware of what was happening and understood its significance for the survival of the democracy. Thus each meeting was, essentially, a referendum on whether or not the Eresians wanted to keep (and were thus willing to defend) the democracy—to uphold their anti-tyranny law. And each time, of course, the answer was “yes.”

Second, the Eresians made common knowledge the fact that the particular king in question (first Alexander, then Philip, then Antigonos) decided
not
to support the exiles' request. The Eresians accomplished that objective by engraving each king's decision on a stele; and they no doubt announced that decision in a meeting of the assembly. All citizens thus could read what the king decided. But inscribing the king's decision performed another important function: it increased the likelihood that the king would not renege on his promise; were he to contemplate a change in policy, the Eresians could show him his earlier decision. It was literally written in stone.
²⁸

In hindsight, the exiles' repeated attempts to return likely strengthened the Eresian democracy. Simply put, those attempts provided opportunities for each citizen to publically reaffirm his commitment to defend the democracy and to learn of his fellow citizens' continued commitment. Individuals would thus be more likely to trust that their fellow citizens would, in fact, follow them should they defend their democracy against a coup d'état. Individuals,
that is, lowered their personal revolutionary thresholds even lower than they were immediately after the initial tyranny trials. As a consequence, the pro-democrats' threat was that much more credible and anti-tyranny ideology sunk that much deeper into the Eresians' collective consciousness.

The New Game's Basis Definitively Secured

This section interprets the action recorded in the sixth text of the dossier. The text and translation are those of Rhodes and Osborne.
²⁹

TEXT 6

ΣΤΟΙΧ
. 36

[ἔ]γν[ω δᾶμος. περὶ ὦν ἀ βό]λ[λα] προεβόλλε[υσε ἢ ἔδο]-

5    
[ξ]ε̣ ἢ̣ [μ]ετέδ[οξε τᾶ βόλλα, καὶ οἰ] ἄ̣νδ̣[ρ]ες οἰ χ[ειροτο]-

[ν]ή[θεν]τε[ς πάν]τα [τὰ γράφεντα] κατὰ τῶν τυρ[άν]-

ν̣ων [κα]ὶ τ[ῶν ἐ]μ πό[λει οἰκη]θέντων καὶ τῶν ἐκγ[ό]-

[νω]ν [τῶν τούτων παρέχ]ονται καὶ ταὶς γράφαι[ς]

[ε]ἰσ[κομίζοισ]ι ε̣ἰς τὰν ἐκλησίαν· ἐπειδὴ καὶ π[ρό]-

10  
[τε]ρον ὀ βασίλευς Ἀλέξανδρος διαγράφαν ἀποσ-

[τέ]λλαις π[ροσέτ]αξε [Ἐρ]εσίοις κρῖναι ὐπέρ τ[ε]

[Ἀγ]ω̣νίππω καὶ Εὐ[ρυσ]ιλ[ά]ω, τί δεῖ πά[θ]ην αὔτοις· [ὀ]

[δὲ δᾶμος ἀκο]υ[σ]αις τὰ[ν] διαγράφαν δικαστήριο[ν]

[καθί]〈σ〉σα[ι]ς κ[ατὰ] τοὶς νόμοις ὀ ἔκριν[ν]ε Ἀγώνι[π]-

15  
[π]ομ μὲν καὶ Εὐρυσιλ[αο]ν τε[θ]νάκην, τοὶς δὲ ἀπο[γό]-

[νοις] αὔτων ἐνόχοις [ἔμμε]ναι τῶ νόμω τῶ ἐν τᾶ

[στ]άλλα, τὰ [δ]ὲ ὐπάρχον[τα π]έπρασθαι αὔτων κατὰ

[τ]ὸν νόμον· ἐπιστέλλ[αντος] δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρω καὶ ὐ-

πὲρ τῶν Ἀπολλ[οδ]ωρε[ίων] 〈κ〉αὶ τῶν κασιγνήτων [αὔ]-

20  
[τ]ω Ἔρμωνος καὶ Ἠραίω τῶν πρότερον τυραννη-

σάντων τᾶς πόλιος καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων αὔτων, γ[νω]-

ναι τὸν δᾶμον πότερο[ν δόκ]ει καταπορεύεσθ[αι]

αὔτοις ἢ μή· [ὀ] δὲ δᾶμος ἀκούσαις τᾶς διαγράφα[ς]

δικαστήριόν τε αὔτοισι συνάγαγε κατὰ τὸν [νό]-

25  
[μο]ν καὶ τὰν διαγράφαν τῶ βασιλέω̣ς Ἀλεξάνδρ[ω],

[ὂ ἔ]γνω λό[γ]ων ῥηθέντων παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τόν τε ν[ό]-

[μο]ν τὸν κατὰ τῶν τυράννων κύριον ἔμμεναι κα̣[ὶ]

[φ]εύγην αὔτοις κὰτ [τὰ]μ π[όλιν]. δέδοχθαι τῶ δάμ[ω]·

[κ]ύριομ μὲν ἔμμεναι κατὰ [τῶν] τυράννων καὶ τῶ[ν]

30  
[ἐ]μ πόλι οἰκηθέντων καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων τῶν το[ύ]-

[τ]ων τόν τε νόμον τὸμ περὶ [τ]ῶν τυράννων γεγρά[μ]-

[μ]ενον ἐν τᾶ στάλλα τᾶ̣ [παλαί]α καὶ ταὶς διαγρά-

[φ]αις τῶν βασιλέων ταὶς κατὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ ψα-

[φ]ίσματα τὰ πρότερον γράφεντα ὐπὸ τῶν προγό̣-

35  
[ν]ων καὶ ταὶς ψαφοφο[ρ]ίαις ταὶς κατὰ τῶν τυράννων. [αἰ]

[δ]έ κέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ἀλίσκηται τῶν τυράννω[ν ἢ]

τῶν ἐμ πόλι οἰκηθέντων ἢ τῶν ἀπογόνων τῶν [τού]-

τ̣ων τις ἐπιβαίνων ἐπὶ τὰν γᾶν τὰν Ἐρεσίων [ … ]

[.]ω τὸν δᾶ̣μ̣ο̣ν̣ βουλεύσασθαι καὶ πρ̣[---

--- c.9------ ]

40   [. .]
α̣λλ[--- 5--- ]τα̣[--------------c. 24--------------]

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

The
damos
decided. Concerning the matters about which the council made a preliminary consultation [
probouleuma
], or the council made a resolution or a revised resolution, and the men who have been elected produce all that has been written against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants, and convey the documents to the assembly: Since previously also King Alexander sent back a transcript and ordered the Eresians to hold a trial concerning Agonippos and Eurysilaos, as to what should be done to them; and the
damos
heard to transcript and set up a law-court in accordance with the laws, which sentenced Agonippos and Eurysilaos to death, and that their descendants should be liable to the law on the stele, and their belongings should be sold in accordance with the law; And when Alexander sent a letter also about the family of Apollodoros and his brothers Hermon and Heraios, who were previously tyrants over the city, and their descendants, that the
damos
should decide whether it resolved that they should journey back or not; and the
damos
heard the transcript and convened a law-court for them in accordance with the law and the transcript of Alexander, which decided after speeches had been made on both sides that the law against the tyrants should be valid and that they should be exiled from the city; Be it resolved by the
damos
: That there shall be valid against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants, the law against the tyrants that is written on the old stele and the transcripts of the kings against them and the decrees previously written by our ancestors and the votes against the tyrants. If contrary to this any of the tyrants, either those who lived in the city or their descendants, is caught setting foot on the land of Eresos --- the
damos
shall deliberate and ---

Text 6 records a decree of the Eresian
dēmos
validating “all that has been written against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants.” Four documents are mentioned. The first document is “the law against the tyrants that is written on the old stele.” As noted at the beginning of this chapter, we do not know for certain the date of that law's promulgation; and we know very little about its provisions. The second group of documents
listed in the decree is “the transcripts (
diagraphai
) of the kings” against the tyrants. The only explicitly mentioned transcripts in the dossier are from Alexander: one ordering the Eresians to try Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2), the other ordering the Eresians to try the descendants of the “former tyrants” in order to determine whether or not they will be allowed return to Eresos (text 3). But Philip Arrhidaios's judgment (text 4) is almost certainly a transcript, and Antigonos's letter (text 5) might have contained one too. The third group of writings mentioned consists of previous decrees promulgated against the tyrants. Texts 3 and 6 are clearly decrees: they contain the generic motion formula “the
dēmos
decided.” And texts 1 and 2 are likely parts of decrees too: they publicly declared how the
dēmos
will try the two tyrants. And there were likely additional decrees that are no longer extant: formal decrees of banishment and property confiscation, for example.
³⁰
The fourth group of documents listed in text 6 consists of “the votes against the tyrants.” That obviously refers to the jury votes in the trial against Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2) and the trial of the descendants of the “former tyrants” (text 3).

The most salient context for this decree (text 6) is the widespread conclusion that, in the future, kings would not interfere in Eresos's interior game. The fact that three different kings in one generation decided not to interfere supports that conclusion, of course. But the Eresians had more to rely on than simply the particular decisions of individual kings: the logic of the modern legal concept of
stare decisis
seems to have taken root. The only
legitimate
action for a king vis-à-vis involvement in Eresos's interior game concerning tyrants and their descendants, that is, was to follow Alexander's precedent—namely, to let the Eresians decide the matter for themselves. In support of that conclusion, one might note, first, that both Philip's transcript (text 4) and Antigonos's letter (text 5) refer to Alexander. The exact context of the Antigonos's reference is unknown. But he quite likely was explaining the rationale of his own decision: he will follow the precedent established by Alexander.
³¹
Second, the decree recorded in text 6 cites Alexander's rulings as the source
of authority of both the Eresians' decisions and the decisions of the subsequent two kings:

Since previously also King Alexander sent back a transcript and ordered the Eresians to hold a trial concerning Agonippos and Eurysilaos, as to what should be done to them…. And when [or since] Alexander sent a letter also about the family of Apollodoros and his brothers Hermon and Heraios…. Be it resolved by the
damos
: That there shall be valid against the tyrants … the law against the tyrants … and the transcripts of the kings.

The pro-democrats' realization that the Hellenistic kings would not interfere in their internal actions against tyrants and the descendants of tyrants had very significant consequences. Simply put, the pro-democrats acquired a much firmer control of their polis. There no doubt would be future exogenous events that threatened to undermine the democratic equilibrium. But perhaps the single most significant exogenous threat had been royal intervention on behalf of the anti-democrats. And now it was reasonably certain that the kings' policies in that regard would be predictably benign; they had been “endogenized” (i.e., made part of the known variables of the interior game). It thus follows that, if the democrats had a clearly credible and capable threat, it would be quite unlikely that anti-democrats would defect: to do so would be irrational.