Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:34:16.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Compleat Angler: Observations on the Rise of Peisistratos in Herodotos (1.59–64)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. M. Lavelle
B. M. Lavelle
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Acarnanian chrēsmologos Amphilytos spoke the verses to Peisistratos just before the battle of Pallene in 546 b.c. They contain a prediction of imminent victory for Peisistratos and total defeat for the Athenians. The Athenians will be routed and deprived of political self-determination, while the victory will restore to Peisistratos the tyranny from which he was twice forced, ‘rooting’ it once for all. Of course, all of this appears quite evident from the narrative. But as the verses form part of Herodotos' account of Peisistratos' ascent to power they amount to much more, for they constitute penultimate proof of Peisistratos' irresistibility (and his tyranny's inevitability), a recurrent theme in Herodotos' logos, but one which was undoubtedly encouraged by his Athenian sources as a means of explaining how the Athenians were forced to yield the tyranny. Indeed, the theme of irresistibility helps to excuse the Athenians for being overcome; as much of the logos, which is historically quite vague, it is a reaction to fact, not factual itself.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 317 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Although βλος has been taken by many to mean ‘small casting net’ (iaculum) (cf. Powell, J. E., Herodotus, i [Oxford, 1949], p. 29Google Scholar [‘net’]; Jankowski, W. and Stoll, H. A., Die Novellen und Anekdoten des Herodots [Leipzig, 1968], p. 53Google Scholar [‘Garn’]; and de Sélincourt, A., Herodotus. The Histories2 [Harmondsworth, 1972], p. 64Google Scholar [‘net’], ‘cast’ or ‘throw‘ (LSJ s.v. βλος; cf. Rawlinson, G., The Histories of Herodotus, i [New York, 1859], p. 153Google Scholar, and Grene, D., The History of Herodotos [Chicago, 1987], p. 60)Google Scholar seems a better translation here. Tunny-fishing was generally a large scale enterprise (Ael. NA 13.16) with the rather large tunnies (cf. Plin. NH 9.44; cf. also Radcliffe, W., Fishing from the Earliest Times [London, 1921], p. 100Google Scholar with a reproduction of a pottery-painting of a tunny; and D'Arcy, Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Fishes [Oxford, 1947], p. 81)Google Scholar netted usually not singly, but in shoals: Peisistratos will ‘net' the entire Athenian army in one action, not piecemeal, as the description of the tunnies’ swimming indicates (see n. 2).

2 οἰμσουσι, connotes something of the order of impetu feruntur (as ‘of a hawk rushing upon a dove’ [see Turner, D. W. (Notes on Herodotus [Oxford, 1848], p. 30)Google Scholar, citing Il. 22.140; cf. also Il. 22.308, 311]). The word here has been translated as ‘launch into (sc. the net)’ or ‘rush headlong’: cf. LeGrand, Ph., Herodote. Histoires, i (Paris, 1970), p. 68Google Scholar: ‘s'y précipiteront’; Humbert, L., Histoires, i (Paris, 1879), p. 36Google Scholar: ‘s'y jetteronten “foule”’; cf. also Jankowski and Stoll (n. 1), p. 53: ‘stürmen hinein’. ‘Swoop, swoop’ (Grene [n. 1] 60) is infelicitous when applied to fishes; ‘come shoaling’ (Powell [n. 1], p. 29) too bland. The ‘temptation’ of Williams, D. J. R. (‘Herakles, Peisistratos and the Alcmeonids’, in Image et Céramique grecque [Actes du Colloque de Rouen, 25–26 11 1982 (Rouen, 1983)] p. 134Google Scholar n. 21, to emend οἰμσουσι to ὑπνώσσουσι should be categorically resisted, since it is without authority of any kind. On tunnies and pelamyds ‘launching into’ nets see Opp. Hal. 3.646 and 4.570.

3 The manuscript reading ‘Ακαρν is sound: that Amphilytos was an Acarnanian and not an Achamian (Valckenauer) is all but certain and no prohibition to his becoming an Athenian in the aftermath of Pallene (Stein; cf. Turner [n. 2], p. 30; cf. Larcher, P.H., Notes on Herodotus [London, 1829], pp. 84–5Google Scholar; LeGrand [n.2], p. 68 [on 62, 16]). Perhaps more significant is the description of Amphilytos as an ‘oracle-monger’, or ‘soothsayer’, but not a mantis, as his fellow-countryman Megistias is described (Hdt. 7.219.1). It is possible that this has something to do with Peisistratos' repute as a ‘Bakis’ (cf. schol. Ar. Pax 1071; How, W. W. and Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus [Oxford, 1912], i.85Google Scholar; Kirchberg, J., Die Funktion der Orakel im Werke Herodots [Göttingen, 1965], p. 70 n. 1Google Scholar; LeGrand [n. 2], p. 68 n. 1) and with his ‘read’ of Amphilytos' verses: see below.

4 Cf. for example, Sayce, A. H., The Ancient Empires of the East: Herodotos, i–iii (London, 1883), p. 35 n. 1.Google Scholar

5 Diog. Laert. 1.68 dates Chilon's ephorate to 560–557, much later, of course, than the birthdate of Peisistratos; cf. How and Wells (n. 3), i.80–1.

6 Chilon's warning about Kythera is almost certainly anachronized from the fifth century, perhaps even dates to the Archidamian War. It is reminiscent of Epimenides' pronouncement on the future perniciousness of Mounychia (Plut. Sol. 12.10). Cf. Bornitz, H.-F., Herodot-Studien (Berlin, 1968), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar

7 Hdt. 1.59.1; the agent of both participles is Peisistratos: cf. McNeal, R. A., ed. Herodotus. Book I (Lanham, Maryland, 1986), pp. 132–3Google Scholar; How and Wells (n. 3), i.80; Bornitz (n. 6), pp. 19–23 and n. 42.

8 Hdt. 5.92.β 2–3, ε 2; see Salmon, J., Wealthy Corinth (Oxford, 1984), pp. 186–9Google Scholar; Bornitz (n. 6), pp. 11–13 (especially 12 n. 15).

9 The substitution of club-bearers for spear-bearers, which many take to be reflective of the truth (cf., for example, How and Wells [above, n. 3], i.82; Boardman, J., ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and sons’, RA [1972], 57–72, pp. 61ffGoogle Scholar.; and even Cook, R. M., ‘Pots and Pisistratan Propaganda’, JHS 107 [1987], 167–9, p. 168)CrossRefGoogle Scholar reads very much like imperfect apology in Herodotos: how astoi carrying clubs could help the outlander Peisistratos take the Akropolis against opponents armed with spears and shields has never been demonstrated, but korunephoroi euphemizes the awarding of a bodyguard by the citizens.

10 Cf. Bornitz (n. 6), pp. 12–13; and Connor, W. R., ‘Tribes, Festivals and Processions: Civic Ceremonial and Political Manipulation in Archaic Greece’, JHS 107 (1987), 40–50, pp. 42–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is further example of this theme in the Ath. Pol. (15.4–5), where Peisistratos is credited with disarming the Athenians by trickery. It is possible that the story was known in Herodotos' time, since Thucydides may have been correcting it by making Hippias perpetrator of a similar stratagem (658.2: cf. Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iv [Oxford, 1970], pp. 335–6Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J., A Commentary on the ‘Aristoteleian’ Athenaion Politeia [Oxford, 1981], p. 210).Google Scholar

11 For another example of divinely inspired intelligence cf. Ael. NA 7.8 on Anaxagoras at Olympia.

12 On the connection of Peisistratos to Herakles: see especially J. Boardman (n. 9); ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and Eleusis’, JHS 95 (1975), 1–12Google Scholar. Boardman, whose views (and such) have been recently criticized by Cook (n. 9), answers in ‘Herakles, Peisistratos and the Unconvinced’, JHS 109 (1989), 158–9Google Scholar with special reference to the Athena-Phye ruse. On the Odysseus-connection: cf. Else, G. F., ‘The Origin of Tragoidia’, Hermes 85 (1957), 17–46, pp. 36–9Google Scholar; Connor (n. 10), p. 43.

13 Cf. Connor (n. 10), pp. 40ff. (although Cook [n. 9], p. 168 n. 17 offers objection); cf. also Blakesley, J. W., Herodotus, i (London, 1854), p. 42 n. 201Google Scholar; and Shapiro, H. A., ‘Poseidon and the Tuna’, AC 58 (1989), 32–43 (especially pp. 42–3)Google Scholar for a different view of the pageant, Amphilytos' verses, and divine patronage-propaganda. I thank Dr. P. Rehax for this reference.

14 Cf. Solon Fr. 4 (West), 11.3–4; cf. Else (n. 12), p. 37; Connor (n. 10), pp. 45ff.

15 Hdt. 1.61.2; Ath. Pol. 15.2; cf. Drexler, H., Herodot-Studien (Hildesheim, 1972), p. 165Google Scholar; Cole, J. R., ‘Peisistratus on the Strymon’, G&R 22 (1975), 42–4Google Scholar; Didiers, Viviers, ‘Pisistratus' settlement on the Thermaic Gulf: a connection with the Eretrian colonization’, JHS 107 (1987), 193–5.Google Scholar

16 The information that Hippias was the prime force in creating the resolve to return to Athens and to retake the tyranny is surely an invention of the fifth century, perhaps directly based upon Hippias' own iron will to power which he demonstrated amply at Marathon in extreme old age (Hdt. 6.107.2–3; cf. Bornitz [n. 6], pp. 14–16; Drexler [n. 15], pp. 211–12).

17 Cf. Hdt. 1.64.1; Ath. Pol. 15.2.

18 Cf. Best, J. G. P., Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen, 1969), pp. 5ffGoogle Scholar.; Vos, M. F., Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting (Groningen, 1963), pp. 65ff.Google Scholar

19 Could Peisistratos also have been influenced to come to land at Marathon by factors which favoured the Eretrian hippeis? Cf. Hdt. 6.102 on the consideration of good ground for cavalry by the Persians or Hippias; cf. also How and Wells (n. 3), ii.361–2.

20 Blakesley (n. 13), p. 44 n. 211 unnecessarily belabours the apportionment of roles in the prophecy by taking Amphilytos' words much too literally, as applying to conditions and displacements obtaining at Pallene at the time of the battle. That is certainly not Herodotos' point, since his account of the battle is in every other way vague, not precise or detailed.

21 Plin. NH 9.18–21; Ael. NA 15.5–6; Opp. Hal. 3.620–48; Philos. Eik. 1.13; cf. Arist. HA 4.10 (537a). Modern literature: Thompson (n. 1), pp. 79–90; and Radcliffe (n. 1), pp. 99–105. Cf. also Steier, A., RE 7, A, 1, 720–33Google Scholar, s.v. thynnos; Rhode, P., De Thynnorum Captura (Leipzig, 1890)Google Scholar and ‘Thynnorum captura’, Jahrb. f. class. Philol. 18 Suppl. (1892), 1–79Google Scholar, apparently definitive for ancient Greek tunny-fishing (cf. Radcliffe's amusingly exasperated comment [p. 101 n. 1]), were unavailable to me in any form.

22 Cf. Opp. Hal. 3.645–8; cf. also Ael. NH 15.10 (on the pelamyd).

23 Ovid, Hal. 98; Plin. NH 9.51; Opp. Hal. 4.562ff. (on pelamyds).

24 Cf. Luc. Jupp. Trag. 25 (θυννώδης).

25 Arist. HA 598b, 19; Plin. NH 9.50 (cf. 9.56); cf. Plut. Mor. 979d–e.

26 Kyn. 1.72.

27 Mor. 966a [= De Soil. Anim. 9].

28 Cf., for example, Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1951), pp. 8ffGoogle Scholar., especially 13. See above n. 11.

29 Od. 10.124; cf. Amies, K., comm. Homers Odysee (Leipzig, 1908), p. 110Google Scholar; Stanford, W. F., comm. Homer. Odyssey, i (London, 1947), p. 369Google Scholar who alludes to the metaphor in Aeschylos' Persai 424–6. I thank Ms. Catherine Mardikes for these references and others.

30 Cf. Ar. Knights 313 where Kleon is described as a ‘tunny-watcher of tribute’ , cf. Neil, R. A., comm. The Knights of Aristophanes (Cambridge, 1909), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; cf. Ael. NH 9.42. Aelian (NH 15.5) lists Herodotos among other authorities on tunny-fishing.

31 Cf. How and Wells (n. 3), i.84–5 (on 1.62.4).

32 I should think that an allusion to night-fishing is the only means to explain the phrase σεληναης δι νυκτς adequately, since the Athenians were actually surprised in the full light of the early afternoon. Williams' attempt to make the oracle precisely parallel to the conditions of the Athenian fighters (playing at dice, sleeping) (n. 1) is not creditable.

33 See n. 3.

34 Shame for the defeat at Pallene accounts for the bald revisions of Andokides (1.106). (Cf. Rhodes [n. 10], pp. 208–9; Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C. [Oxford, 1971], pp. 27–8Google Scholar; the views of Raubitschek, A. E., ‘Zu attischen Genealogie’, RhM 98 [1955], 258–62Google Scholar; and MacDowell, D. M., Andokides. On the Mysteries [Oxford, 1962], pp. 212–13Google Scholar I find unconvincing, especially because neither of two adequately accounts for Pallene as a site of battle between Athenians and Spartans or Spartan sympathizers.)