Download Corrupted States: Tyranny in Plato and Thucydides

1
Jennifer Will
SBC Honors Summer Research Program
07/16/11
Classics, Philosophy and Religion
Corrupted States: Tyranny in Plato and Thucydides
In 509 BCE, the last tyrant was expelled from Athens, igniting a new era of democracy
within the city.1 Even after the democratic reforms, however, tyranny remained a topic of
speculation for many thinkers into the next century. I will focus on selected works from two
authors who were active in the 5th century, Thucydides and Aristophanes, and two authors from
the 4th century, Plato and Xenophon. The four writers approach the subject from different
vantage points, through philosophical dialogue, historical events, and comical plots. For each
writer, tyranny arises through different means and causes. They have a distinct understanding of
the nature of tyranny as well as its moral and political implications. I will analyze the treatment
of tyranny in all four writers, and examine whether or not the latter authors, Plato and Xenophon,
respond to the content of the earlier authors, Thucydides and Aristophanes.
The Corruption of Athens in The History of the Peloponnesian War
Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, while primarily a historical work, is
composed of both fact and approximation, providing philosophical insight into human nature in
the course of retelling fundamental events in Greek memory.2 Thucydides, in his recollection of
the war that reshaped both Hellenic past and future, shows the transformation of a formerly
virtuous city, Athens, into a government resembling tyranny.
From Democracy to Tyranny
The History is primarily an account of Athens' deteriorating relationship with Sparta
1
2
Pomeroy, Sarah. A Brief History of Ancient Greece (New York: Oxford University Press. 2009), 136.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. Steven Lattimore (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
1998).
2
during the 27 yearlong war. In Book 1, there is an assembly of the Peloponnesian League, which
is comprised of Sparta and her allies. During the meeting, representatives from Corinth accuse
Athens of unjust acts. Following the Corinthian speech, visiting representatives of Athens rise to
speak. One of the key points of discussion among the council is Athens' overwhelming power,
and apparent mistreatment of its subjects, the Potidaeans, an act that created a rift between the
Corinthians and the Athenians (History 1.56-61). Feeling wrongfully judged, the Athenians
attempt to qualify their treatment of their subjects by making an appeal to human nature, saying,
“the rule has always existed that the weaker is held down by the stronger,” and “all are entitled to
praise whenever they follow human nature by ruling others” (1.76). Though Athens may be
oppressive toward its subjects, the speaker claims that the subjugation is less severe than when
the same subjects were under the rule of the Persians, a time during which they “endured far
more terrible sufferings” (1.77). By comparing the Athenians to the Persians, the speaker
attempts to justify Athens' mistreatment of its subjects. In reality, however, the lesser states are
still under the thumb of Athens. By making an indirect comparison between Athens and Persia,
two tyrannical entities, the speaker unknowingly anticipates later tyrannical acts that will be done
by Athens. Thus, even before the Peloponnesian War formally beings, the seeds of tyranny
already exist in Athens.
The Corinthians take the stage again, during a second meeting of the Peloponnesian
League. There is still disagreement as to how to respond to the Athenian aggression. The
Corinthian representatives are the first to make the case for war, and criticize the Athenians for
their stance. They are scornful of Athens, which, despite its great strength, would rather keep up
its defenses than risk losing their empire to the Persians. The Athenians overpower the
Corinthians, who “did not even secure freedom for [themselves] but allowed a tyrant state to be
set up” (1.122). Here, freedom (eleutheria) seems to be the key difference between a state's
3
autonomy, or democracy, and slavery to another state; since the Corinthians did not achieve their
own liberty, they were in a vulnerable state even before Athens' invasion. Here, Athens is viewed
as a looming threat to its neighbors, an imposing force that is stronger than all the cities
combined.3
The Glory of Athens in Pericles' Funeral Oration
Following the deaths of the first soldiers to go to war, a publicly funded funeral takes
place (2.34). Pericles, who is chosen to speak, gives a speech in honor of the Athenians, both
deceased and living. The funeral oration in 2.34-46 praises Athens for its many democratic
qualities. The city, he says, “is called a democracy on account of being administered in the
interest not of the few but the many” (2.37). Athens, composed of many different types of
people, draws its power from its citizens. All men are equally capable of participating in the
government, but those who contribute their talents to society are justly elevated to a higher status
(2.37). He refers not to individuals, but to the city as a whole, further strengthening his praise of
democracy. Athens is not a city of divided individuals, but a collective body of people who share
a common democratic spirit.
The funeral speech contains appeals to both logos and eros, praising the Athenians for
both their moderation and their passion for the city. Eros is an integral part of the Athenian spirit,
although it is not clear if it is equally as important as logos. Pericles implores the Athenians to
become lovers of the city, yet he also stresses the importance of speech and reason (History
2.43). Eros reinforces the citizens' commitment to the city, weaving a common thread among all
Athenians, despite class differences.4 Emotional attachment, however, must be tempered by
3
4
“The Athenians are a match for all of us combined and even more powerful against us city by city” (1.22).
Darien Shankse summarizes the use of eros in Pericles' rhetoric, saying, “eros is the answer to the question of
how a polis of free individuals can also be perfectly committed to the common good.” Darien Shankse,
Thucydides and the Philosophical Origins of History (New York: Cambridge University Press), 45-46.
4
reason in order for a society to survive. Pericles' appeal to eros in his address to the citizens
paints Athens as the beloved, placing the city in a submissive role. This version of Athens is
inconsistent with the charges made by the Corinthians, who claim that Athens is a source of
oppression for much of the Peloponnesian League. Additionally, Pericles calling the citizens
“lovers” of the city increases the tension between the individual and the city that is presented in
the funeral oration: each citizen must love the city in order for it to remain strong, but if all
citizens love the city in equal parts, they themselves become a singular entity. He never mentions
a specific individual during the speech, and substitutes any praise of the fallen soldiers with the
praise of the city.
Metaphor of the Plague
Directly after Pericles' funeral speech, a great plague (νόσος) consumes Athens, leaving
few alive in its wake. Thucydides offsets Pericles' idealized view of Athenian society with the
disease, which turns even the most cultured aristocrats into immoral savages. Having lived
through the epidemic himself, he offers not a factual account of the events surrounding it, but a
personal reflection of his experience as both observer and participant.
The plague can be seen as a punishment for Athens' decadence in the face of war. It
originates near Ethiopia, traveling to Athens through the Piraeus, a significant port city (2.48). In
the funeral oration, Pericles seems to foreshadow the plague in his praise of Athens' strong
commercial ties with foreign states, saying, “... the magnitude of our city draws the produce of
the world into our harbor, so that to the Athenian the fruits of other countries are as familiar a
luxury as those of his own” (2.38). In a sinister irony devised by Thucydides, the people's
indulgence in exotic luxuries is replaced with an all-consuming plague.
While based in fact, the description of the plague functions as a prophecy of the
breakdown of Athenian society. The cultural decline begins when history is forgotten and people
5
begin living solely in the present, a change that is indicated in the funeral oration. Pericles,
breaking away from the oral tradition in which the ancestral past is commemorated, 5 extols the
virtues of the Athenians of the present, rather than eulogizing the heroes of the past. Of the
eleven sections that encompass the speech, only one focuses on Athenian history (2.36). He
places great importance on the virtue of the Athenian soldiers, equating them to the city as a
whole. Furthermore, Thucydides recalls an ancient warning of a plague, or as it is described in
the prophecy, a famine (2.54). The old verse, as it was remembered, anticipated a “Dorian war,”
with famine following closely behind. The foreshadowing goes unheeded, a mistake which may
have contributed to the overall destruction of the city.6
Logos dissolves when the plague strikes, both physically and metaphorically. It begins in
the head, the seat of both reason and memory (2.49). If one survives the initial symptoms, “total
loss of memory” follows shortly thereafter (2.49). In this description, we see history, and with it,
tradition and kinship, left by the wayside as the people are forced to live solely in the present.
Men who would ordinarily adhere to the social mores become lawless, with a newfound
disregard for both “fear of gods and the laws of men” (2.53). The moderation that was previously
the very quality Pericles praises in the funeral oration is all but gone, because “no one anticipated
that he would live till trial and pay the penalty for his crimes” (2.53).
Further into the History, Thucydides explicitly likens Athens to a tyranny, during the last
of Pericles' speeches, where he attempts to persuade the Athenians to remain at war for the sake
of the city. Pericles says, “you now hold [the Athenian empire] like a tyranny that seems unjust
5
Cultural history, beginning with mythology and ending with the ancestral past, is a key focal point of traditional
funeral oration. Pericles' speech is a deviation from the tradition, yet it is the most famous example of funeral
oration.
6
In this passage, Thucydides, the historian, argues with history itself. He is unsure whether the verse says
“famine” (λιμόν) or “plague” (λοιμόν). This dispute in word choice further indicates the importance of memory,
both within the text and without.
6
to acquire but dangerous to let go. Men of that sort would very quickly destroy their city if they
persuaded others” (2.63). Although Athens acquired land “unjustly,” the Athenian soldiers must
not withdraw at risk of weakening the empire. It can be understood, from this quote, that Athens'
empire is at least moderately unstable, because it requires conquered land in order to retain its
strength. Just as a tyrant desperately holds on to his power in fear of being supplanted by another
ruler, Pericles, shifting dramatically from his pro-democracy stance, recommends that Athens
retains its power, just as a tyrant would. Athens itself is also like a tyrant, having seized land that
does not rightfully belong under its rule. Both Pericles and Athens change by the conclusion of
the plague, and his third and final speech seems to acknowledge the dire state of the Athenians.
Athens as Tyrant in the Melian Dialogue
In 416 BCE, Athens sends representatives to Melos after the Melians refuse to become
their ally (5.84). With the intention of invading the island, they take a forceful approach and
gather in a private space. The exchange displays Athens' transformation from the outwardly
virtuous city described by Pericles in Book 2 to the oppressive, pragmatic and secretive war
machine of Book 5. The Athenians lack regard for the social niceties that would be necessary in a
public environment, saying,
“we will not make a long speech no one would believe, full of fine moral arguments... we
both know that decisions about justice are made in human discussions only when both sides
are under equal compulsion; but when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the
weak must accept that.” (5.89)
The explicit rejection of rhetorical language contrasts sharply with that of the funeral oration.
Pericles, a model Athenian, used rhetoric in order to increase the morale of the Athenian people
while composing a flattering picture of the city. Additionally, the funeral oration was given in an
open, public format, while the Athenian representatives in Melos request to speak in behind
closed doors. The Melians are powerless against the Athenians, and the Athenian representatives
7
make no attempts to convince them otherwise. Although the Melians favor neutrality over war,
their friendship with Athens would make the Athenians appear weak toward their enemies, and
so the representatives decide to seize the land, killing its citizens and establishing a colony of
their own (5.116). This implies that Athens is invading Melos not only for practical reasons, but
also for the sake of reputation. Thucydides' negative portrayal of Athens shows the city's
devolution into an increasingly tyrannical figure that relies on brute force as well as outward
pretenses that conceal darker intentions.
The Importance of Memory
In ancient Greece, memory and glory have been linked since the time of Homer, when the
characters of epic poetry based much of their actions on how they wished to be perceived by
future generations. The warriors in the Iliad, for example, saw kleos (glory) as their primary
motivation for their actions. The Athenian man in the fifth century lived his life in order to be
seen in high regard by his fellow countrymen, as well as the gods. The importance of the
judgment of men is established in Pericles' funeral oration.7 Without the recollection of past
deeds, there is little reason to live a just life; man has no incentive to act virtuously if there is no
memory of his actions. In his description of the plague, Thucydides lists memory loss as an
effect of the disease. After their first recovery, the Athenians succumb to both a personal and
cultural amnesia such that “they could not identify either themselves or those closest to them”
(2.49). Just as logos dissolves, as established in a previous section, men begin to care less about
their reputation.
Loss of memory in a society results in the loss of tradition as well as the atrophy of
preexisting laws. This memory loss is the goal of the tyrant, who lives for the present and who
7
“In public we are especially law abiding because of fear, in our obedience both to anyone holding office and to
laws” (2.37).
8
gains power only by supplanting the former laws of the people he wishes to govern. The tyrants
of ancient Greece focused on the immediate present and future, neither adopting the ways of
their predecessors nor producing heirs to extend their legacy beyond a single generation.
During its civil war, the Greek city Corcyra was governed, in a way, by two tyrannical
bodies, which competed against each other, using rhetoric and false promises to gain favor from
its citizens. The citizens, caught between the two factions, had no power whatsoever (3.82). In
catering to the people's desires, the factions created a false sense of control among the citizens,
tricking them into believing they were enfranchised in the government, yet it was the orators who
held all political power. Corcyra, then, is a corruption of a democratic state. On human nature,
Thucydides says, “with public life confused to the critical point, human nature, always ready to
act unjustly even in violation of laws, overthrew the laws themselves and gladly showed itself
powerless over passion but stronger than justice and hostile to any kind of superiority” (3.83). As
described in the above quote, the Corcyrean civil war is a result of human nature in its basest
form. Thucydides alludes to memory loss again, when a famine erupts in Corcyra (3.85). The
Corcyreans, already crippled by civil dispute, are weakened even further when nature betrays
them as well. The Corcyrean exiles invade their own homeland, and “made this their base to
plunder their countrymen in the island, and did so much damage as to cause a severe famine in
the town” (History 3.85). The scourge is reminiscent of the Doric prophecy of the famine in
Book 2, which goes ignored by the Athenians. The word the prophecy uses for famine is λιμός,
the same word that Thucydides uses for the Corcyrean famine. Is it possible that such a disaster
could have been avoided by remembering the past?
Education and Tyranny in Aristophanes' Clouds
Aristophanes' Clouds, a comedywritten in 423 BCE, takes a critical look at two modes of
education. The old educational tradition, which he characterizes in the play as the Better
9
Argument, stresses the importance of respecting one's elders and tradition. The new form of
education, the Worse Argument, is sophistry. Socrates fully embraces the Worse Argument, even
though it is devoid of morals and rejects tradition. The characters, all of whom are unlikeable,
play out a comedy that attacks the philosophy of Socrates as well as the emerging school of
sophistry.
Language is of great importance as a tool for showing the play's meaning. At the
beginning of the play, Strepsiades wishes he had named his son after his own father, Pheidonides
(meaning “thrifty”). Instead, his stubborn, high-class wife insists that they incorporate hippos, or
“horse,” into their son's name. The wife's choice in names shows her expensive lifestyle, because
the horse were considered a symbol of wealth. “Pheidippides” is in fact a combination of pheidand hippos, and shows the tension between the two parents' lifestyles. His name, then, accounts
for both his love of racing and his inability to afford it. While the symbolic name illustrates the
fundamental difference between Strepsiades, a pedestrian man of the earth, and Pheidippides, his
haughty son, it also displays an incompetence that precedes his entry into the Thinkery.
Strepsiades' name comes from the verb στρέυω, meaning “to twist.” His name implies his desire
to “twist” his way out of his debts, adding to his morally corrupt character. Strepsiades is
vulnerable to all rhetoric, including his wife's. While his wife is skilled in oratory, as a result of
her aristocratic upbringing, Strepsiades has no such sophistication. Because of this weakness, he
implores his son to attend the Thinkery, not for just reasons, but to learn both the “Better” and
“Worse” arguments, so as to talk his way out of his debts (Clouds 118).
The play begins with Strepsiades, an old Athenian, languishing over the debts
accumulated by his son's habit of buying horses. Desperate to talk his way out of paying for his
son's misbehavior, he goes to the Thinkery to learn how to wield words as deftly as Socrates.
Aristophanes, in likening the Thinkery to a mystic cult, immediately calls the role of
10
“philosophical” education into question. The secretive aspect of the Thinkery alludes to the
exclusive nature of philosophy, which is sometimes seen as an activity that is accessible to only a
few. Socrates is portrayed as a swindler who uses false words and empty promises to draw
students into the school. Once Strepsiades gains entrance into the Thinkery, it becomes apparent
that he lacks the mental capacity for sophistic argument, much to the frustration of Socrates
(Clouds 627). He forces his son, Pheidippides, to attend the school in his place, where he is
educated in the Better and Worse Arguments.
Strepsiades goes to retrieve his son from the Thinkery before the last day of the month,
what he calls “the day that is both Old and New” (Clouds 1134). Pheidippides, now indoctrinated
with the sophistic education, finds fault in calling the last day of the month both Old and New,
saying, “There's just no way a single day can possibly be two days” (Clouds 1182). Having
adopted Socrates' sophistic way of thinking, he can no longer approach metaphor without
dismantling its meaning. Strepsiades loses his case, and in an act of desperation, beats his
creditor. He feels betrayed by Pheidippides, and, as an adherent of the Old tradition, is outraged
at his son's loss of respect for him (Clouds 1324). The play ends with Strepsiades setting fire to
the Thinkery and cursing the Clouds, killing Socrates, Pheidippides and the pupils (Clouds 14521500).
Aristophanes paints Socrates and his Thinkery in a comedic light, showing the absurdity
of their larger-than-life endeavor to contemplate the cosmos while forgetting about the world of
human affairs. Both Socrates and his students live a life of poverty, clothing themselves with
stolen items. The students whom Strepsiades approaches absorb themselves within the world of
the Clouds, spending their days calculating seemingly minor topics, such as the distance of a
flea's jump (Clouds 145). The inhabitants of the Thinkery hold themselves in high regard, though
they appear ridiculous from an outsider's point of view. Socrates first appears suspended in a
11
wicker basket, an entrance traditionally reserved for gods (Clouds 226). The gods, in fact, have
no place in the Thinkery; Socrates calls upon the Clouds for guidance, rejecting the traditional
pantheon for the effervescent world of ideas (Clouds 253). As the final scene of the play shows,
however, the Clouds are ultimately ambivalent to the plight of humans, and passively watch as
the Thinkery burns to the ground (Clouds 1454-1455).
The Son Becomes a Tyrant
Despite his criticism of Socratic philosophy, Aristophanes seems to prefigure Plato's
statements on tyranny in the Republic. When Strepsiades meets his son after he is taught at the
Thinkery, Pheidippides is thoroughly steeped in the “new” way of thinking, insulting his father's
taste for traditional poets like Simonides and Aeschylus (Clouds 1361-1365). Becoming
increasingly frustrated, Simonides lashes out against the insolent boy, who, to the father's
surprise, strikes back (Clouds 1375). Such disrespectful actions towards one's family would
have been used for the purpose of the play's comedic tone, yet it also anticipates Plato's
description of the tyrannical man. His soul corrupted, the tyrannical man strikes the very person
who provided him with life: his father. When Plato composes the Republic, he includes a similar
description in his account of the tyrannical man, saying, “Do you think... for the sake of a
newfound and replaceable boyfriend in the bloom of youth, he'd strike his aged and irreplaceable
father?” (Republic 574c)
Education is central to the Clouds, and provides a point of contact between this work and
the Republic. Sophistry was an emerging pedagogical system when the Clouds was written, and
Aristophanes bases the Thinkery off of the sophistic model. While it is not clear whether
Aristophanes supports the “new” educational tradition, he takes the opportunity to satirize
Socrates' apparent preoccupation with ideas, rather than real issues. Here, Socrates is a master
sophist who, in contrast to his swift understanding of esoteric concepts in the beginning of the
12
play, is unable to pass on his vast knowledge to Strepsiades. Socrates, who, at least in the Clouds,
is a skilled rhetorician, fails at teaching his student how to argue. Does this mean that Socrates is
a failure as a philosopher? Or does the failure come from the student? Moreover, Strepsiades
himself, as a father, fails at teaching his son to be moderate. The Clouds, then, examines two
types of incomplete education: that of teacher and student, and of father and son.
As in the Republic, the democratic man (here, Strepsiades) is himself unjust. The play
begins with Strepsiades attempting to take his son to the Thinkery, not with the intention of
teaching him justice or virtue, but to gain enough oratorical skills to argue his way out of debt. It
is the father, not Socrates, who corrupts his son; such a distinction helps to clarify Socrates' role
in the play and solidifies the Clouds' connection to the Republic. While it maintains a comedic
tone throughout, the Clouds nevertheless provides insight into how philosophical education in
the individual can affect the development of tyrannical actions.
The Decline of the Polis and the Soul in Plato
Two works from Plato, the Gorgias and the Republic, can be used to gain an
understanding of the correlation between the health of the human soul and the well-being of the
city; the Gorgias is concerned with the soul of the individual, and the Republic uses the soul as
an analogy for the city. Not only does Plato connect the gap between the individual and the city,
but he uses the human soul as a model for the overall governance of a society. He outlines
distinct ways in which a person may improve his soul – namely, by practicing philosophy –
while condemning certain vices, such as poorly used rhetoric and excessive freedom, for their
negative effects on the soul. I am interested in how the corruption of the soul can be translated to
the corruption of the city, and whether the tyrannical man and the tyrannical society devolve in
the same way. The Gorgias shows how the soul of the individual can become both corrupted by
untruth and healed by philosophy, which will help in understanding the development of tyranny
13
in the Republic.
In the Gorgias, immoderation is associated with the misuse of rhetoric, which is built on
lies for the sake of persuasion. The “unhealthy soul” is the one that contains injustice and impiety
(Gorgias 479b). Callicles, an orator who speaks toward the end of the dialogue, represents
rhetoric in its imperfect form. He is a lover of the demos, while Socrates is the lover of
philosophy (Gorgias 481d). Whereas philosophy is constant and directs itself toward the truth,
the demos, or people, are “fickle” and cause Callicles to change his message to adapt to their
tastes. A good orator, on the other hand, is concerned with the health of the soul, and instead of
speaking for his own gain, he uses words to bring about justice within the souls of the citizens
(Gorgias 504e). In fact, Socrates calls himself “one of the few Athenians to take up the true
political craft and practice the true politics” (Gorgias 521d). He has a great love for Athens, and,
like a good orator, aims not for what is the most pleasant, but for what is best for the city.
Socrates compares the immoderate soul with a man who suffers from illness: “[I]f he or anyone
else cares about acts unjustly... he should go to the judge as though he were going to a doctor,
anxious that the disease of injustice shouldn't be protracted and cause his soul to fester
incurably” (Gorgias 480a-b). Likewise, philosophy does for the soul what medicine does for the
body.
The Republic differs from the Gorgias in that it focuses on the use of philosophy in
political terms (that is, in the state) as well as in the individual. Plato's ideal society, an
aristocracy in which philosophers rule as kings, has a direct correlation with the ideal structure of
the soul, and he discusses justice in this ideal city as a way to further understand justice within
the soul. As part of his discussion of the proper governance of the city, he describes several other
types of corrupt constitutions. Books VIII and IX of the Republic address four unjust forms of
government: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, the last of which is examined more
14
thoroughly than the rest. To Socrates, democracy flows naturally into tyranny as a result of
corruption. Thus, to understand the origin of tyranny, we must consider Socrates' idea of
democracy. A democracy's key trait is the freedom afforded to its citizens, and this lack of
constraint is held in high regard. The citizens, free to do as they please, form a multicolored
political fabric consisting of various types of men (Republic 557c). While democracy appears to
be a preferable government, freedom can often lull citizens into a hedonistic stupor. When the
people themselves are the rulers, the love of freedom easily supplants the love of virtue as they
fall prey to their impulses. This, Socrates says, is what necessitates a dictatorship (Republic
562c).
Socrates aligns political systems with human “types,” giving each regime a
corresponding man. The democratic man, while originally following the frugal ways of the
oligarch, gradually gives in to his unnecessary appetites. He is stopped short of tyranny, however,
by his oligarchical origins, which dictate that he must retain a measure of self-control (Republic
572c). The tyrannical man, on the other hand, submits himself to lust. Since his father is a
democratic man who allows himself every manner of liberty, the tyrannical man is raised without
knowing the virtue of moderation (Republic 572e). He approaches all desires with an “erotic
love” that allows him to pursue them freely (Republic 573a).
In the Republic, each type of man was originally taught in the ways of the previous
generation. Because of this distinction, education seems to be directly linked to human nature, if
not the political system at large. Indeed, the cave described in Book 7 is a metaphor for the
educational duty of the philosopher. By exposing himself to the sunlight, every man who leaves
the cave becomes enlightened. Once he gains an understanding of the Forms, he must return to
the cave and persuade others to leave the darkness. So the cycle continues, with each enlightened
man educating the ignorant. Fathers, too, have a responsibility to impart their own wisdom to
15
their sons. In an ideal society, the philosopher king is the sole “educator” of the rest of society.
While each corrupt type of man (timocratic, oligarchical, democratic and tyrannical) leads to a
worse form, a piece of the father's nature remains: the oligarchical man retains his timocratic
father's ambition; the democratic man retains his father's frugality; and the tyrannical man retains
a thirst for freedom. The tyrant lives completely divorced of philosophical teaching.
Is tyranny an indication of a larger problem within a society? Socrates differentiates
between the “sick” and “healthy” societies in Book 2 of the Republic. The healthy city practices
moderation, while the unhealthy city succumbs to luxury. In a healthy city, both the citizens and
the rulers are moderate (Republic 431e). All citizens, regardless of class, possess a certain level
of self-knowledge that allows them to accept their respective position within the social
framework. This means that the lower classes recognize the rulers' superiority, and do not resent
it, while the rulers believe they are the best fit for the job. The metaphor of illness is also used in
the Gorgias to signify the health of the soul, which can be upheld by practicing philosophy.
Philosophy and Tyranny in the Hiero
Xenophon's Hiero provides a valuable look into the relationship between the poet, a
figure of wisdom, and the tyrant, a figure of political power. Figuratively speaking, the work is a
dialogue between poetry and politics that shows how philosophical discourse connects the two
realms. In the dialogue, Simonides, a Greek lyric poet, and Hiero, a noted tyrant, meet to discuss
the life of tyranny. Their discussion reveals a deep-seated fear within the tyrant, who lives in
suspicion of both his friends and enemies (Hiero 1.38). What is gained through usurpation –
riches, land, and followers – is made worthless by constant paranoia. Simonides has the final
word, ending the dialogue with a lengthy monologue, urging Hiero to adopt a kinder, more
compassionate attitude toward his subjects (Hiero 11.2-15). His attempts to persuade Hiero to
earn the love of his people seem to ring hollow, as the tyrant, perhaps unable to conjure a
16
response, remains silent.
Hiero's silence at the end of the dialogue implies that he cannot interact with Simonides
on a philosophical level. He cannot accept the compromise that the poet recommends, and,
despite the drawbacks of being a tyrant, decides to retain his position of power. It is important to
remember that the two men begin their dialogue on level ground; Hiero recognizes Simonides'
wisdom and wishes to benefit from it. Ultimately, however, he appears to be content in engaging
in the one-way interaction that can only occur between a superior and his subordinate. The
dialogue implies two things: that politics and philosophy often fail to communicate successfully,
even though one may wish to benefit from the other; and that the political realm ultimately
retains power over the intellectual. While philosophy can be the connecting force between poetry
and politics, it seems to not always succeed in allowing the two figures to communicate,
especially if one interlocutor does not truly wish to participate.
Simonides, like Socrates, indicates that the thirst for glory is inherent in all people, and it
is a trait that sets humans apart from animals. A tyrant, who surrounds himself with riches, would
naturally be held in higher regard than the average citizen (Hiero 7.3-4). For this reason,
Simonides suggests, Hiero should be content with his advantageous position. Hiero disagrees,
saying that true honor stems from concern for a ruler's wellbeing. A true king is met with gifts
from his reverent subjects. Tyrants have no such honor, for they are the objects of contempt and
jealousy. Rather than receive gifts, the tyrant expects to be betrayed (Hiero 7.10).
Xenophon's dialogue hints at the question: can philosophy affect the actions of rulers?
And if so, how? Because Hiero never responds to Simonides' final monologue, it is unclear
whether the tyrant chooses to change his ways. In this, we can perhaps sense Xenophon's own
frustrations toward the Athenian government. The same question extends to the Republic, in
which the plight of the tyrant is treated with precision. Tyranny, it seems, is the natural result of a
17
failure on the part of both teacher and student, or philosopher and ruler. While a dutiful
philosopher can lead a cooperative ruler to virtue, a philosopher who feels little obligation to his
city will allow it to fall into corruption. In the absence of philosophy, which imparts a love of
virtue and moderation on its pupils, justice fails and tyrants rule at their will.
Does Xenophon's portrayal of a real-life tyrant align with Plato's figurative description of
the tyrant? Hiero is painted in a humanizing light, appearing as a sympathetic character who
suffers, not benefits, from his political position. Whereas Plato describes the tyrant as being
consumed by his desires, Hiero claims to feel no desire whatsoever (Hiero 1.30). Xenophon's
tyrant, then, seems to suffer from his political situation, while Plato's tyrant has a sickness of the
soul.
Conclusion
The History, the earliest work, clearly affected the later writers, especially Plato. The
diagnosis of tyranny in the Republic bears a striking resemblance to the evolution of Athens in
the History. In both works, democracy transitions naturally into tyranny as a result of corruption.
In the Republic, a democracy is composed of people from various backgrounds who enjoy a high
level of freedom, which is tempered by the love of virtue (557c). Socrates claims that tyranny
begins in the same freedom that is enjoyed by democratic peoples. Such freedom, however,
becomes dangerous when it consumes the people (Republic 562c). Similarly, Pericles describes
Athens as a democracy, which allows citizens to act freely in private, yet binds them by both
written and unwritten laws in the public realm (History 2.37). While Socrates cites excessive,
unbridled freedom as the source of tyrannical action, Thucydides' vision of tyranny begins with
greed and the fear of losing power. In the History, Athens begins developing into a tyrannical
force even before the start of the Peloponnesian War, with the most drastic decline occurring
directly after the plague description.
18
Thucydides, Aristophanes, and Plato all incorporate rhetoric into their works. While
Thucydides does not make the importance of rhetoric explicit, it is apparent that oratory,
especially that of Pericles, has a factor in the changing face of Athens. Pericles uses rhetoric to
direct the Athenian people toward what he believes to be just, while the later Athenians who
participate in the Melian dialogue reject rhetoric. Aristophanes bases much of the Clouds on the
negative qualities of sophistry, and, in his description of the violence between corrupt father and
son, seems to have influenced Plato's later treatment of tyranny in the Republic.
While Xenophon's Hiero does not deal with rhetoric at length, it does ask its readers to
consider the relationship, if any, between the poet (or philosopher) and the tyrant, and in broader
terms, the individual and the state. This is a question that is posed by all four authors, and it
ultimately affects the way that each author discusses tyranny. In Thucydides, the tension between
the individual and the state is presented in Pericles' funeral oration. As the History progresses,
Athens becomes less concerned for its individual citizens and more concerned with its own
survival as a political entity. The Clouds shows the toxic relationship between the tyrannical son,
Pheidippides, and Socrates' Worse Argument, which is closely related to sophistry. The Worse
Argument can be compared to the poor rhetoric that Socrates criticizes in the Gorgias, which
hinders the development of virtue within the soul. Finally, in the Republic, the philosophers
themselves are the ideal rulers, and it is the absence of philosophy that leads to the corruption of
the city.
19
Works Cited
Aristophanes. Acharnians, Lysistrata, Clouds. Translated by Jeffrey Henderson. (Focus Classical
Library), 1997.
Plato. Gorgias. In Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company), 1997.
Plato. Republic. In Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company), 1997.
Pomeroy, Sarah. A Brief History of Ancient Greece (New York: Oxford University Press), 2009.
Shankse, Darien. Thucydides and the Philosophical Origins of History (New York: Cambridge
University Press), 2007.
Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Steven Lattimore. (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company), 1998.
Xenophon. Hiero the Tyrant and Other Treatises. Translated by Robin Waterfield. (London:
Penguin Classics), 1997.