Death to Tyrants! (31 page)

10
See, for example, the mid-fourth-century decree from Amphipolis (
RO
49). Like the aforementioned mid-fifth-century decree from Miletos, it orders the permanent exile of two men and authorizes their assassination “wherever they are found” (lines 7–9).

11
Note, in this regard, that Alexander sent Apollonides and his captured Chian associates to Elephantine Island (Arr.
Anab.
3.2.7). While this is not an execution, it is an example of Alexander delivering justice personally at the same time that he ordered Agonippos and Eurysilaos to stand trial in Eresos.

12
This is questioned by Bosworth (1980: 89–90). Drawing attention to Arr.
Anab.
1.9.9 (wherein “the allies” [
τοῖς ξυμμάχοις
] are said to have decided Thebes's fate) and Diodoros's abuse of the word
synedrion
, he suggests that an ad hoc assortment of league members rendered the famous verdict.

13
Matters surrounding the handling of the captured pro-Persian Chians are disputed. The dispute arises because (1) in Alexander's “First Letter to the Chians” (
RO
84, lines 13–15), the king ordered those men to be tried by “the
synedrion
of the Greeks” (i.e., the
synedrion
of the League of Korinth); (2) Arrian (
Anab.
3.2.7) notes that Alexander—in 332—sent captured Chians (among whom was included Apollonides) to the city of Elephantine in Egypt. Resolving the matter depends on the date of Alexander's letter to the Chians. Heisserer (1980: 83–95) dates it to 334. Thus, in Heisserer's view, there were two sets of captured pro-Persian Chians: the first (captured in 334) were, indeed, tried by the
synedrion
; the second (captured in 332) were sent by Alexander to Egypt. Bosworth (1980: 268) accepts the more traditional (i.e., pre-Heisserer) date of 332 for Alexander's first letter to the Chians. He thus suggests the possibility that the
synedrion
—per Alexander's order as contained in his letter to the Chians—deliberated on the matter but was unable to come to a conclusion. Thus they sent the men to Alexander, who, in turn, sent them to Elephantine Island. Bosworth compares that possibility with the actual dealings with the Spartans in 330: Antipater submitted the matter to the
synedrion
and the
synedrion
subsequently referred the matter to Alexander (Diod. Sic. 17.73.5–6; Curt. 6.1.19–20; Aischin. 3.133).

14
For Alexander's conquest of Asia Minor, see Badian (1966).

15
For the difficulties facing Alexander after the assassination of Philip, see Diod. Sic. 17.2–4. Arrian (
Anab.
1.1.1–3) largely ignores the matter.

16
Like his father, Alexander announced that his intention was to liberate the Greek cities of Asia: Diod. Sic. 17.24.1

17
There are three basic historical interpretations. The traditional interpretation (advanced by Pistorius and then modified by Heisserer) argues for three tyrannical periods, each of which is followed by a pro-Macedonian democracy: (1) before Eresos joined the Korinthian League; (2) in 335, after Memnon's gains in the Troad; (3) in 333, after Memnon's naval counter offensive. According to this interpretation, Philip established or at least strongly supported a democratic regime in Eresos when the city joined the Korinthian League and Memnon did, in fact, engage in naval operations in 335 (and took Eresos). Bosworth (1980: 179; 1988: 192–93) offered a second interpretation according to which two different tyrannical regimes dominated Eresos back to back: Hermon, Heraios, and Apollodoros ruled from some unknown time until circa 338; Agonippos and Eurysilaos succeeded them and ruled until they were expelled by Alexander's forces in 332. In this interpretation, Agonippos and Eursilaos were originally loyal to Philip but medized during Memnon's naval campaign in 333. Lott (1996) offered the third interpretation according to which there were two separate tyrannical periods: (1) Hermon, Heraios, and Apollodoros came to power circa 338 and ruled until they were expelled by Alexander's forces after the battle of Granikos in 334; (2) Agonippos and Eurysilaos seized power in 333 during Memnon's naval campaign, but were expelled by Alexander's forces in 332. In this interpretation, Philip supported a tyranny in 338 and Eresos did not fall to Memnon's forces in 335.

18
One must note the war of 331, led by Agis III of Sparta. For a discussion, see Cartledge and Spawforth (2002: 22–24). It was limited to Peloponnesian states, but the danger could have spread. Also note Diodoros's comments at 17.48.5–6. Many Persian military officers who escaped from the battle of Issos continued to fight against Alexander: “some got to important cities and held them for Darius, others raised tribes and furnishing themselves with troops from them performed appropriate duties in the time under review.”

19
Priene (
RO
86), Mytilene (
RO
85), Ephesos (Arr.
Anab.
1.17.10–12), Chios (
RO
84), Erythrai (
I. Erythrai
10), Zeleia (
Syll
.
³
279). Also note Alexander's action at Mallos (Arr.
Anab.
2.5.9).

20
On the important role of punishment in a democratic polis, see Allen (2000).

21
The translation “tortured as a deterrent spectacle” (
μετὰ τιμωρίας παραδειγματιζόμενον
) is suggested by Walbank (1957: 266).

22
Compare what happened in nearby Methymna (Curt. 4.8.11).

23
The first part of text 3 is inscribed on the last lines of the obverse of gamma, immediately after text 2; thus its first line is line 33. The second part of text 3 constitutes the earliest lines of the right lateral of gamma; thus it begins with line 1. Text 4 continues right after text 3 on the same right lateral of gamma: thus the line numbering. And the majority of text 5 completes the rest of the right lateral of gamma: thus the line numbering. The very last lines of text 5, however, constituted the earliest lines on gamma's reverse: thus the line numbering. Note that, in my translation, I print the Greek word
dēmos
(or the Aeolian
damos
) instead of
RO
's translation “the people.”

24
Perhaps these exiles were driven out of Eresos before the Eresians passed their “law against the tyrants” (336?). Thus they might have argued that they should be affected neither by that law nor by the trial of 332.

25
This is argued by Heisserer (1980: 62–67).

26
This conclusion is based in large part on the possible meaning of
ὑπέρ
(“on behalf of”) (line 39). But note that the same preposition is used in text 6 (lines 18–19) referring to Alexander's letter to the Eresians concerning the trial of the descendants of the “former tyrants.” It is, perhaps, doubtful that Alexander wrote a letter of support for those men in 324. Both Welles (1974: 14) and Magie (1950: 874n60) conclude that Antigonos initially supported the descendants of Agonippos.

27
On Lysimachos, see Lund (1992).

28
A great example of this use of publicly placed writing is found in lines 13–18 of
I. Ilion
33. Meleagros, the Seleukid governor of the Hellespont satrapy, wrote to the
dēmos
of Ilion that Aristodikides of Assos (a “friend” of the king) had chosen to attach his newly received land to the territory of Ilion. At the end of the letter, Meleagros wrote, “You, however, would do well to vote all the usual privileges to him and to make a copy of the terms of his grant and inscribe it on a stele and place it in the sanctuary in order that you may retain securely for all time what has been granted” (trans. Burstein). For a detailed examination of the use of inscribed documents in the mediation between Hellenistic poleis and the superpower kings, see Ma (2000).

29
This text, recorded on the reverse of gamma, immediately follows text 5. Thus it begins with line 4. Note that I have maintained the Greek word
damos
instead of
RO
's “the people.”

30
Such texts were likely inscribed on the parts of the two stones that are no longer legible. Heisserer (1980: 64) also suggests that Alexander's order (in 334) that the tyrants be exiled and rendered subject to arrest (
agogimoi
) was inscribed on stone beta.

31
Note that the verb
ἐντυγχάνω
(found in the present tense in Antigonos's letter, lines 2–3) can mean, in addition to “encounter” (as found in
RO
's translation), “appeal to” (+ dative), as found in
RC
2. Importantly, Alexander's name is in the dative case:
Ἀ̣λεξάν
[
δρωι
] (line 2). Thus the sense could be “appeal to Alexander.” Also, there appears to be general agreement that the subject of
εν
]|
τυγ
[
χ
]
αν
[ is the Eresians: Paton, in
IG
XII, 2, 526 (followed by Heisserer and
RO
) restored the second person plural finite verb:
ἐν
]|
τυγ
[
χ
]
άν
[
ετε
;
Tod
191 and
OGIS
8 restored the plural participle in the nominative case:
ἐν
]|
τυγ
[
χ
]
άν
[
οντες
; Welles (
RC
2) restores a participle but is noncommittal on its case and number:
ἐν
]|
τυγ
[
χ
]
αν
[
οντ–16–
. It is thus possible that the general sense is “your appeal to Alexander's precedent is persuasive.” For a brief discussion of the first three lines of the reverse of stone gamma, see Heisserer (1980: 55–56).

32
Unfortunately, there are very few extant inscriptions from Eresos, and the few that do exist are not precisely (or even roughly) dated. However, the inscriptions do suggest that the
dēmos
was in control of the polis after 300. The following texts likely date to the Hellenistic period and give an indication that the
dēmos
controlled Eresos:
IG
XII, 2: 527, 528, 529, 530; Supplement to
IG
XII: 120 (before 190 BCE), 121 (3rd/2nd c. BCE), 122 (209–204 BCE). No extant text from this period indicates that the
dēmos
was not in control of the polis.

33
Bosworth's comments (1980: 317). It might be relevant to note that Seleukos I and Antiochos I returned a statue of Apollo to Miletos that was taken by Darius I (Paus. 1.16.3, 8.46.3).

34
It must be stressed that the Alexander was not doctrinaire in his liberation/democratization policy. Parmenion, for example, enslaved the small Aeolic town of Gryneion (Diod. Sic. 17.7.9). But that occurred before Alexander commanded the forces in Asia Minor (see Badian [1966: 39–40]). And Thebes was a democracy when Alexander had it destroyed. But it, of course, was on the Greek mainland. Note, too, Alexander's maltreatment of Soli (in Kilikia) during the run-up to the battle of Issos (Arr.
Anab.
2.5.5–8): he put a garrison in the city and fined the citizens 200 talents (because they favored Persia) and then “granted them democracy.” As Bosworth notes (1980: ad loc.), this notorious incident demonstrates that a grant of democracy was not necessarily a grant of freedom. Arrian appears to contrast Alexander's treatment of Soli with his subsequent treatment of Mallos (Arr.
Anab.
2.5.9).

35
There surely was internal competition for control of the various poleis. The epigraphic record in several cities makes this clear. For example, Mytilene (
RO
85), Erythrai (
I. Erythrai
10), Chios (
RO
84). Alexander's democratization policy was unwelcomed by anti-democrats.

36
For an analysis of the laws from Eretria and Athens, see, respectively,
chapters 2
and
3
. Note, too, that Phanias of Eresos (a student of Aristotle, who was Alexander's tutor) wrote a book titled
τυράννων ἀναίρεσις ἐκ τιμωρίας
(“the slaying of tyrants out of vengeance”) (Athen. 3.90e; 8.33a, 10.438c). Alexander clearly understood the potential power of anti-tyranny ideology.

5

The Philites Stele from Erythrai

Introduction

Alexander's conquest of western Asia Minor marked a dramatic turning point in Erythraian politics. For the previous fifty-four consecutive years (386–332) and for seventy-two of the previous eighty years (412–394 and 386–332), oligarchs controlled that polis.
¹
By the end of the 330s, however, the democrats were in control. What many Erythraians likely considered to be the natural and immutable political order had been completely upended.

This chapter analyzes the Erythraian democrats' efforts to maintain control of their polis in the face of efforts by their anti-democratic opponents to reinstate the pre-Alexander status quo. The following inscription (
I. Erythrai
503), henceforth referred to as the “Philites stele,” is the starting point for the inquiry.
²

Non-
ΣΤΟΙΧ
.

῎Εδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· Ζωίλος Χιά-

δου εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ οἱ ἐν τῆι ὀλιγαρχίαι τῆς εἰ-

κόνος τῆς Φιλίτου τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος

τὸν τύραννον τοῦ ἀνδριάντος ἐξεῖλον

5    
τὸ ξίφος, νομίζοντες καθόλου τὴν στάσιν

καθ᾿ αὑτῶν εἶναι· ὅπως ἂν ὁ δῆμος φαίνηται