tyrannus

tyrannus, i, m., = τύραννος.

• In gen., a monarch, ruler, sovereign, king (rare, and mostly poet.): tyrannusque fuerat appellatus (Miltiades), sed justus ... omnes autem et dicuntur et habentur tyranni, qui potestate sunt perpetuā in eā civitate, quae libertate usa est, Nep. Milt. 8, 3; Verg. A. 4, 320; 7, 266; Ov. M. 6, 436; 6, 581; Luc. 7, 227; Val. Fl. 5, 388; 5, 548.—Of the Spartan king Nabis, Liv. 35, 12, 7.—Of Neptune, Ov. M. 1, 276.—Of Pluto, Ov. M. 5, 508.—Of the constellation Capricornus, because it ruled over, influenced the ocean, Hor. C. 2, 17, 19.—
• II In partic., a cruel or severe ruler, a despot, tyrant: tyrannorum vita, Cic. Lael. 15, 52; id. Phil. 13, 8, 18; id. Vatin. 9, 23: importunus atque amens, id. Verr. 2, 5, 40, § 103; id. Mil. 13, 35; id. Tusc. 5, 20, 57: cum exitiabilis tyrannus (urbem) vi atque armis oppressit, Liv. 29, 17, 19: tyrannorum ingeniis mors est remedium, Sen. Ben. 7, 20, 3; Flor. 1, 7, 3; Val. Max. 3, 1, 2; Verg. G. 4, 492; Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 58: animus noster modo rex est. modo tyrannus; ubi impotens, cupidus, delicatus est, transit in nomen detestabile ac dirum, et fit tyrannus, Sen. Ep. 114, 24.—Gen. plur.: tyrannūm novi temeritudinem, Pac. ap. Non. 181, 23 (Trag. Rel. p. 79 Rib.: non tyrannum novi, as acc. sing.).

tyrannus, ī, m. (τύραννος, dor. st. κοίρανος), der Herr, Gebieter (rein lat. dominus), I) im allg., der unumschränkte Herr, Herrscher, Gebieter, Fürst (vgl. Nep. Milt. 8, 3), v. Äneas, Verg.: Phrygius, v. Laomedon, Ov.: v. Neptun, als Beherrscher der Flüsse, Ov.: v. Nabis, König in Sparta, Liv. – II) insbes., von dem, der sich in einem freien Staate gegen den Willen des Volkes die Herrschaft anmaßte, der Gewaltherrscher, Zwingherr, Despot, Tyrann, tyrannus eius civitatis, Liv.: clemens tyrannus (Ggstz. rex importunus), Cic.: tyrannus libidinosus crudelisque, Cic.: tyrannus saevissimus et violentissimus in suos, Liv.; vgl. (v. Antonius) si eius pueritia pertulerat libidines eorum, qui erant in eum tyranni, etiamne in nostros liberos dominum et tyrannum comparabat? Cic.: animus noster modo rex est, modo tyrannus, Sen. ep. 114, 24. – Plur. tyranni auch prägn. = der Tyrann mit seinem ganzen Hause u. Anhange, ut tyrannos Thessaliae expellerent, Nep. Pelop. 5, 2.

tyrannus [CL < τύραννος] 1 absolute ruler, monarch, tyrant; b (dist. as having cruel or oppressive manner of rule); c (transf. & fig.). apud Brittannias Gratianus municeps ~us creatur et occiditur Bede HE I 11; ~um, cyning GlS 211; quem [regem] pertimuerunt non solum insularum principes et ~i, sed etiam reges plurimarum gentium Byrht. V. Osw. 425; imperat ~us circumfundi omnem turbam suorum interius solumque regem teneant, quem suis legibus rebellem jam cognoverat Abbo Edm. 10; ceteri ‥ eorundem regum ~i, et quique potentissimi duces et principes, legatis suis eum adeunt V. Ed. Conf. f. 40r; revivescet mater malleabit capud tyrampni M. Scot Proph. 162.  b reges habet Britannia, sed ~os; judices habet, sed impios; saepe praedantes et concutientes, sed innocentes; vindicantes et patrocinantes, sed reos et latrones Gildas EB 27; differentia est distinctio duarum rerum cum interpretatione, ut: rex dicitur, quia modestus est; ~us, quia crudelis est Alcuin Gram. 858C; ambitiosus et protervus, ecclesiasticarum legum tirannus ‥ invictus W. Malm. GP II 94 p. 200; ~us est rex perversus et crudelis Bacon Gram. Gk. 66.  c paulominus ad pristinam reditur experiendam veterum nequitiam ~orum J. Ford Serm. 67. 12; [mustela] gravis murium majorum ~us, et vestium corrosiva Gir. TH I 27; pede tyrannum conteris incurvatum J. Howd. Cant. 174. 2 cruel and oppressive person. adversus truculentam ~orum [gl.: fortium, militum] rabiem Aldh. VirgP 33; Brittanni ‥ cum essent ~i et tumidi, legationem Romanorum contempserunt Nen. HB 162; quidam ex regali genere ‥ qui est heros et ~us, qui semper occidit et rapit (Abbanus 26) VSH I 20; erat quidam homo crudelis et ~us, durus et malignus valde (Comgallus 21) Ib. II 10; ~us vel miles vendidit unam magnam silvam Gascoigne Loci 134. 3 (as adj.) of the nature or character of a tyrant. cruentissimis a tyrannis parentaliter exortum ipsumque tyrannorum omnium ~issimum Gir. PI III 31; regis ‥ Johannis tempore, quo non surrexit inter natos mulierum ~ior ‥ in uno ‥ anno mille marcas ab eodem truculenter extorsit G. S. Alb. I 295. 4 (in name of animal): a (dens ~us, for ὀδοντοτύραννος) kind of large animal, perh. crocodile or rhinoceros, said to be found in the Indus or Ganges. b golden-crested wren (Regulus cristatus, cf. et. shricus). a fuit ‥ in Indorum finibus bestia major ‥ elephanto, colore nigro, quam Indi dentem ~um vocaverunt; quae in medio torvae frontis tria cornua gessit et tantae animositatis erat ut sibi conspectis hominibus non tela neque ignes nec ulla vitaret pericula Lib. Monstr. II 16.  b ~us, A. a nyn murder, Germanice eyn neun mürder oder eyn gold hendlin. vescitur et vermibus ~us, cui corpus non multo amplius quam locuste, crista rutila ex pluma elatiuscula, et cetera elegans, cantuque suavis hec avicula est Turner Av. (1903) 168.

tўrannus, ī, m. (τύραννος), ¶ 1 tyran [au sens grec], roi, souverain, monarque : Nep. Milt. 8, 3 ; Virg. En. 4, 320 ; 7, 266 ; Liv. 35, 12, 7 || [en parl. de Neptune] Ov. M. 1, 276 ; [de Pluton] Ov. M. 5, 508 ¶ 2 tyran, despote, usurpateur : Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 73 ; 5, 103 ; Mil. 35 ; Læl. 52, etc. ; Liv. 29, 17, 19, etc.

tyrannus , i. m.
王。主。僭王。霸王。暴厲。苛責者。\Tyrannum pro* Tyrannorum.

Suggest a Translation
See an image

tyrannus ī, m

• , τύραννος, a monarch, sovereign, king, absolute ruler, personal governor, despot, prince: Nomadum tyranni, V.: Pandione nata tyranno, O.: Lacedaemonius, i. e. king of Sparta, L.: qui (amnes) tecta tyranni Intravere sui, i. e. the halls of Neptune, O.: tyrannus Hesperiae Capricornus undae (as the constellation which brought storms), H.—An arbitrary ruler, cruel governor, autocrat, despot, tyrant: tyrannorum vita: qui hoc fecit ullā in Scythiā tyrannus?: exitiabilis, L.: non invenere tyranni Maius tormentum, H.

TYRANNUS

TYRANNUS(τύραννος). The word τύραννος has not yet been satisfactorily explained by a Greek etymology, and Boeckh's conjecture that it was a foreign word and came to the Greeks from Lydia or Phrygia, where it is found frequently in inscriptions, is extremely probable (Boeckh, Comment. ad C. I. G. n. 3438). The meaning the word conveyed to a Greek mind was that of a man who wielded absolute power, and a power not sanctioned by the ordinances of the state in which it was exercised. This is all that is essential to the notion; yet the later philosophic thought of Greece, combined with actual historical experience, developed an addition to the conception,--namely, that the rule of the τύραννος was exercised not in the interests of the subjects, but in that of the ruler. This was a natural consequence of the conception that the rule of the tyrant was always outside the pale of law (Eur. Suppl. 445), although it was a deduction not always justified by facts. Aristotle embraces every side of the idea when he defined tyranny proper as that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will (Arist. Pol. iv. 10, 4 = p. 1295). The main point of separation between τυραννὶς and βασιλεία was the self-interested nature of the former government (Arist. Pol. 3.7, 5 = p. 1279; Eth. 8.10, 2), although the early kingships of Greece differed additionally from tyranny in having their privileges and their powers determined by custom (Thuc. 1.13, 1); and thus a king who, like Pheidon of Argos, overstepped the limits of his hereditary power, was accounted a tyrant (Arist. Pol. 5.10, 6 = p. 1310). It may be further noticed, in this definition of Aristotle and in the Greek conception generally, that tyranny proper implies individual rule.

Tyranny, while always answering in some degree to this general conception, yet had the particular form in which it manifested itself determined by the circumstances of the times and the stage of political development in Greece. We may distinguish two main periods of despotism, that of the 7th and 6th centuries on the one hand, and that of the 4th century on the other; the difference between the earlier and the later of these periods is the difference between symptoms of growth and symptoms of decay in the same nation: and while the former was a result of the natural course of internal development in the states and prepared the way for the free constitutions, the latter was a consequence of the downfall of the free governments and of the external causes which in the 4th century acted on Greek politics as a whole. The early tyrannies grew for the most part out of the oligarchical governments which succeeded the downfall of the monarchies. In Corinth and Thebes the monarchy fell about the middle of the 8th century: in Sparta, at a still earlier period, it had been saved by a limitation of its powers: in Athens it dwindled down to the limited functions of the archonship. Everywhere its power had been replaced by the rule of a nobility, whose special claims to honour were the exclusive possession of the sacrifices and higher religious rites of the state, the exclusive knowledge of its laws, and the sole possession of that political ἀρετὴ which resulted from higher birth and from inherited wealth and culture. But in the 7th century B.C. other classes were growing to power by the side of the old nobility,--the classes, namely, which had acquired wealth through commerce, and which were not only excluded from all participation in public affairs, but found their properties exposed to danger from the dynasties that ruled their towns. These formed the largest part of the discontented elements that fostered the despot, as in Corinth, where the revolution took the form of a reaction against the Bacchiadae, who had grossly misused their power and unscrupulously appropriated the profits of commerce (Ael. Var. Hist. 1.19; Strabo, p. 325): and the assertion of Thucydides that it was the growing wealth of Greece which gave rise to despotism (Thuc. 1.13) is illustrated both by this instance of Corinth and by that of the neighbouring town of Sicyon, which was renowned only next to Corinth for trade and manufacture (Strabo, p. 382). The tyrannies that developed out of oligarchies in Sicily and southern Italy, at Leontini, Gela, and Rhegium, during the close of the 6th century B.C. (Arist. Pol. 5.12, 13 = p. 1316), were probably due to the same assertion of their claims by the rich and unprivileged classes; in other states it was the poorest class, such as the Diacrii of Athens, on the championship of which the despot based his claim to power (Arist. Pol. 5.5, 9 = p. 1305; Hdt. 1.59); while at other times the element of race entered into the struggle, as at Sicyon, where both the tyrant and his supporters belonged to the Ionian Aegialeis, and the revolution took the form of a reaction against an oppressive Dorian nationality (Hdt. 5.68). Throughout Greece we see a period of transition, during which pressing difficulties, national or social, called for settlement; and the adjustment that ensued took the form either of a constitutional dictatorship or of an unconstitutional monarchy. In the former case the contending factions combined in appointing an individual for the settlement of their difficulties who bore the title of αἰσυμνήτης. Such an office was held by Pittacus in Mitylene, Zaleucus in Locri, and Solon in Athens; it was the only constitutional form of despotism in the Greek world, and Aristotle describes it as an elective tyranny (Arist. Pol. 3.14, 8 = p. 1285), and as combining the characteristics of βασιλεία and τυραννίς (ib. 4.10, 3 = p. 1295). The aesymnetes was given a body-guard of sufficient force to enable him to carry out his work of renovation (ib. 3.15, 16), and held office either for life or for a term of years or until certain duties had been performed (ib. 3.14, 9). In the later period of tyranny we find an aesymnete, Iphiades of Abydos, who made himself despot (ib. 5.5, 9 = p. 1305; Plaes, Die Tyrannis, 2. p. 89); and in some states, such as Teos, Cyme, Naxos, and Megara, the aesymnesia developed into a standing magistracy [AESYMNETES]. But such a legitimised despotism was rare in the Greek world. More frequently the reins of government were seized by a man who constituted himself the champion of a section of the people. The demagogue who united military prowess with zeal for the popular welfare was the most ordinary type of despot; this character is found chiefly exemplified by the pretenders who in the 7th and 6th centuries rose to the throne through opposition to the ruling oligarchies, such as Orthagoras at Sicyon, Cypselus at Corinth, Theagenes at Megara, Pisistratus at Athens (Arist. Pol. 5.5 and 10; Hdt. 1.59); but this type perpetuated itself even in the 4th century: Dionysius of Syracuse was one of the great historic instances of the demagogue-despot (Arist. Pot. 5.5, 10), and both Plato and Aristotle affirm this championship of popular causes to be the most settled element in the growth of tyrannies (Plat. Rep. 8.565 D, τύραννος ἐκ προστατικῆς ῥίζης καὶ οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἐκβλαστάνει: cf. Arist. Pol. 5.10, 4 = p. 1310). But it was in the earlier tyrannies that this phenomenon was of most importance, as inaugurating a new and necessary phase of political life; they effected, as no other power could have done, the unity of the nations which they governed, and in many cases, as at Athens, their rule first created a national spirit (Hdt. 5.66); they were thus the precursors of the democracy, and even where democratic institutions did not follow their overthrow, yet a juster and more equable rule replaced, as at Corinth, the dynastic government of the older oligarchies. The demagogues who made their way to the throne were sometimes sprung from the oppressed classes whom they championed, as Orthagoras of Sicyon, who belonged to the weaker Ionian element of the state, and is said to have been a cook (Diod. 8.24); in other cases they were members of the oligarchies they overthrew, and made the great powers which they possessed as, magistrates a stepping-stone to the crown. It was thus that Phalaris rose to be tyrant of Agrigentum (Arist. Pot. 5.10, 6); Lygdamis of Naxos belonged to the old nobility (ib. 5.6, 1); at Miletus a tyranny arose out of the office of prytanis (ib. 5.5, 8), and according to one account Cypselus of Corinth rose to power by the mode in which he exercised the office of πολέμαρχος (Nicol. Damasc. Frag. 58). When once he had risen to power, the despot was sometimes enabled to retain his position through popular support; thus Cypselus of Corinth was a popular man who during the whole time of his rule never had a body-guard (Arist. Pol. 5.12, 4); and men like Gelo, who based their power on a victory over the national foes, could dispense with the support of armed force (Diod. 11.23, 26, 48); but as a rule the band of ἐπίκουροι, for the support of which the subjects were taxed, was the invariable accompaniment of tyrannis (Arist. Pol. 3.14, 7); this body-guard was usually composed of foreign mercenaries (ib. 5.10, 10), such as the Argive soldiers of Pisistratus (Hdt. 1.61). Even when the first steps to power were due to popular support, the rise to the tyranny was often effected by a coup d‘état, as in the case of Pisistratus. Sometimes, even in the older tyrannies, the despotic rule was wholly acquired by the use of armed force. It was thus that Polycrates and afterwards Syloson gained the throne in Samos (Hdt. 3.120; Polyaen. 6.45), that Aristodemus gained the throne in Cumae (Dionys. 7.2to 11), and that Cylon attempted to make himself tyrant of Athens (Hdt. 5.71; Thuc. 1.126). The first exercise of the despot's power was usually the banishment of the more powerful members of the faction, which it had been his declared object to resist. Thus the Bacchiadae were expelled from Corinth by Cypselus (Dionys. 3.46; Strabo, p. 325; Hdt. 5.92), and even Pisistratus of Athens, in spite of his otherwise mild rule, found it necessary to banish some of the nobles (Hdt. 6.103; cf. Arist. Pol. 5.10, 12). But by the wiser despots no violent change was made in the machinery of government. The Orthagoridae and Pisistratus ruled in accordance with the existing laws (Hdt. 1.59; Thuc. 6.54, 6; Arist. Pol. 5.12, 1), the latter taking the precaution of having the great offices in the state filled by members of his own family (Thuc. l.c.). When radical changes were introduced, these had more of a social than a political character, and were calculated either to raise the position of one class of the population at the expense of others, or to unite the peoples by means of common festivals, or to give an impulse to democracy by substituting the universal, and, popular cults for the aristocratic and exclusive worship of the nobles. The first of these changes we find brought about in Sicyon, where the struggles which raised the Orthagoridae to power had an ethnic significance; the hatred of Cleisthenes to the memory of Adrastus, his suppression of the Homeric recitals and his alteration in the tribenames, were all intended to elevate the Ionic element in the state at the expense of the Dorian (Hdt. 5.67and 68). The aim of uniting the people by festivals may be illustrated by Pisistratus' cultivation of the Panathenaea (Schol. Arist. p. 323); and that of superseding the aristocratic worship by the encouragement given by Cleisthenes of Sicyon and by Periander of Corinth to the popular cult of Dionysus (Hdt. 1.23, 5.67-Z2). A further object of the despots' policy was to strengthen their position by adding a lustre to their courts. To effect this they patronised arts and letters, as was done by Periander, Pisistratus, and Hiero, and some, like Polycrates of Samos, maintained an almost Oriental splendour (Sayce on Hdt. 3.39); they raised great buildings, such as the temple of Olympian Zeus originated by the Pisistratidae, and the great monuments at Samos built by Polycrates (Arist. Pot. 5.11, 9=p. 1313; Hdt. 3.60), and sent rich offerings to the religious centres of Greece, such as those dedicated by Cypselus and Periander of Corinth, and by Myron of Sicyon at Olympia (Plut. Sept. Sap. Conv. 21; Paus. 5.17to 19, 6.19, 2). Aristotle attributes these buildings and offerings of the despots to the desire to impoverish their subjects and give them no time to hatch conspiracies (Arist. Pol. l. c.); but the more probable object was the desire of personal distinction in their own states and in Greece: and even amongst the later despots we find the revival of this cultivation of Greek art and letters by. Maussolus of Halicarnassus and Evagoras of Cyprus (Plin. Nat.35.49; Isocr. in Evag. 20 and 21). The necessities of internal administration showed the true evils of tyrannis. Aristotle characterises the maxims which the despot must employ to preserve his power as being, to create a slavish feeling in the subjects, to create mistrust amongst them, and to allow no prominent men in the state (Arist. Pol. 5.11; cf. Hdt. 5.92); while the inevitable influence of flatterers and parasites and the system of espionage were other evils that accompanied their rule (Arist. l. c.). But there was probably no positive oppression of the general mass of the citizens. Some despots, like Dionysius of Syracuse, might have taxed their subjects heavily (Arist. Pol. 5.11, 10); but the Pisistratidae, we are told, only collected one-twentieth of the products of the soil. The artisans, who were not landowners, would thus have been wholly untaxed, and it was to the interest of the despot to provide the lower classes with material for work, and so keep them contented and employed (Ael. Var. Hist. 9.25; Nicol. Damasc. Frag. 60). The external policy pursued by the early despots was at once vigorous and prudent. Thucydides, indeed, says that, with the exception of the tyrants of Sicily, the policy of those of Greece generally was characterised by a regard for selfish interests and by an absence of any great foreign activity (Thuc. 1.17); but this judgment is scarcely applicable to despots like Cypselus, who founded some of the most important colonies of Corinth (Strabo, pp. 270, 388), or Periander, who, besides founding Potidaea (Nicol. Damasc. Frag. 60), holding Corcyra and capturing Epidaurus (Hdt. 3.50and 53), is also credited with the institution of the Isthmian games (Duncker, Hist. of Greece, 2. p. 371, n. 2), and certainly raised Corinth to a greater height of power than she attained before or after him. Pisistratus of Athens, too, subdued Naxos, purified Delos (Hdt. 1.64; Thuc. 3.104), and pushed his arms as far as Sigeum in the Troad (Hdt. 5.94); while Polycrates of Samos founded a maritime empire, and mingled in the politics of Egypt and Persia (Hdt. 3.39and 44). More manifest, however, was the greatness of the life and works of the early despots of Sicily--of Gelo and Hiero in particular. The power of Gelo of Syracuse was almost commensurate with his aims. These were a union of all the Sicilian Greeks against the barbarian, which he so far effected as to be himself described by the historian as despot of Sicily (Σικελίης τύραννος, Hdt. 7.163, cf. 100.157).

But, however powerful the individual tyrant might make himself, it was not in the nature of the tyrannies to last long. They marked a period of transition in Greek politics, and, when their work of destruction and preparation had been effected, there was no further reason for their continuance; they were rarely inherited, and, even when transmitted, fell rapidly through the degeneracy of the holders, who sought to maintain their power by force, and sometimes through quarrels in the ruling house, such as proved the ruin of the earlier and later despotisms at Syracuse (Arist. Pol. 5.10, 31). The Orthagoridae ruled at Sicyon for a hundred years, the Cypselidae at Corinth for seventy-three years, the Pisistratidae at Athens, exclusive of the period during which Pisistratus was banished, for thirty-five; and Gelo, Hiero, and Thrasybulus at Syracuse for eighteen years (Arist. Pol. 5.12; Hdt. 1.60; Eratosth. ap. Schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 502), but these periods of duration were exceptional (Arist. l. c.). The actual overthrow of a tyranny was sometimes due to a general rising of the people, such as that which deposed Thrasybulus of Syracuse (Diod. 11.67sq.), sometimes to conspiracies inspired by private revenge (Arist. Pol. 5.10), but was not unfrequently effected by external force. Thus the Lacedaemonians drove out the Pisistratidae and are credited with having put down other tyrannies (Thuc. 1.18; Hdt. 5.92; Arist. Pol. 5.10, 30); and similarly the Syracusans, after the death of Thrasybulus and after that of the younger Dionysius, put down despotisms in the other Sicilian states (Arist. l. c.; Diod. 11.68, 16.82-Z2; Plut. Tim. 34).

The earlier despotisms in Greece proper, belonging to a dim period of history, became at an early period obscured by legend and coloured by the later Greek conceptions of tyranny. From these legends was developed the idea of a normal type of despot, which was usually embodied in the person of Periander. He was the standing illustration of the mode in which the true despot preserved and exercised his power (Arist. Pol. 5.11), while the events of his life were modelled after that conception of the internal state of the despot, which was such a favourite subject of Greek speculation (Hdt. 5.92; cf. Plat. Rep. 9. p. 580; Xen. Hiero, passim). The so-called tyrants of the Greek cities in Asia Minor in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.--such as Daphnis of Abydos, Aeaces of Samos, Aristagoras of Cumae, and others (Hdt. 4.138)--cannot be classed with the despots of the early period in Greece proper, Italy, and Sicily. They were merely native princes who governed the Greek dependencies of Persia, and who were kept in their position by Persian support; and in their dependence on external aid they bear a greater resemblance to the later despot of the 4th century.

This later despotism differed essentially from the earlier, in that it was not a natural growth and did not arise from internal changes in the Greek communities, but was a product of the general degeneration and of the ever-growing influence of mercenaries. The causes which raised these despots to power were sometimes the influence of the political clubs, but more often the ease of raising mercenaries or of seeking the protection of some strong foreign master (Plaes, Die Tyrannis, ii. pp. 38-40). The exceptions to the general rule were the later despotism of Sicily and the government of the Tagi of Thessaly. Dionysius of Syracuse was, like the earlier despots, a demagogue; and with the rule of Jason of Pherae Thessaly began a new life, became a united nation, and took her place among the powers of Greece. But on the whole these despotisms were not the sign of a healthier phase of political life. Many of them were due to the power of Macedon, which sought, like Persia, to rule its dependent states through despots; and most of them were a sign of the impossibility of the continuance of free civic life in Greece.

(H. G. Plaes, Die Tyrannis in ihren beiden Perioden bei den alten Griechen, Bremen, 1852; Drumann, De tyrannis Graecorum, Halle, 1812; Wachsmuth, Hell. Alterth. 1.493 ff., 2.72 ff., 688 if.; Schömann, Griech. Alterth. i. pp. 169 ff.; Gilbert, Handb. der griech. Staatsalth. 2.277 ff.; Iwan Müller, Handb. der classisch. Alterth. Wissenschaft, 4.1, 36 ff.; Duncker, History of Greece, Bk. iv.; Grote, History of Greece, Pt. ii. ch. 9; on the Sicilian tyrants, Holm, Gesch. Siciliens in Alterth. 1.212 ff., 2.77 ff.)

[A.H.G]

Tyrannus

(τύραννος). In the Heroic Age all the governments in Greece were monarchical, the king uniting in himself the functions of the priest, the judge, and military chief. In the first two or three centuries following the Trojan War various causes were at work, which led to the abolition, or at least to the limitation, of the kingly power. Emigrations, extinctions of families, disasters in war, civil dissensions, may be reckoned among these causes. Hereditary monarchies became elective; the different functions of the king were distributed; he was called Archon (ἄρχων), Cosmus (κόσμος), or Prytanis (πρύτανις), instead of Basileus (βασιλεύς), and his character was changed no less than his name. Noble and wealthy families began to be considered on a footing of equality with royalty; and thus in process of time sprang up oligarchies or aristocracies, which most of the governments that succeeded the ancient monarchies were in point of fact, though not as yet called by such names. These oligarchies did not possess the elements of social happiness or stability. The principal families contended with each other for the greatest share of power, and were only unanimous in disregarding the rights of those whose station was beneath their own. The people, oppressed by the privileged classes, began to regret the loss of their old paternal form of government, and were ready to assist any one who would attempt to restore it. Thus were opportunities offered to ambitious and designing men to raise themselves by starting up as the champions of popular rights. Discontented nobles were soon found to prosecute schemes of this sort, and they had a greater chance of success if descended from the ancient royal family. An example is Pisistratus, who was the more acceptable to the people of Athens as being a descendant of the family of Codrus. Thus in many cities arose that species of monarchy which the Greeks called tyrannis (τυραννίς), which meant only a despotism, or the irresponsible dominion of one man. This very frequently was nothing more than a revival of the ancient government, and, though unaccompanied with any recognized hereditary title, or the reverence attached to old name and long prescription, was hailed by the lower orders of people as a good exchange, after suffering under the domination of the oligarchy. All “tyrannies,” however, were not so acceptable to the majority; and sometimes we find the nobles concurring in the elevation of a despot, to further their own interests. Thus the Syracusan Gamori, who had been expelled by the populace, on receiving the protection of Gelon, sovereign of Gela and Camarina, enabled him to take possession of Syracuse, and establish his kingdom there. Sometimes the conflicting parties in the State, by mutual consent, chose some eminent man, in whom they had confidence, to reconcile their dissensions, investing him with a sort of dictatorial power for that purpose, either for a limited period or otherwise. Such a person they called aesymnetes (αἰσυμνήτης). The tyrannus must be distinguished, on the one hand, from the aesymnetes, inasmuch as he was not elected by general consent, but commonly owed his elevation to some violent movement or stratagem, such as the creation of a body-guard for him by the people, or the seizure of the citadel; and, on the other hand, from the ancient king, whose right depended, not on usurpation, but on inheritance and traditionary acknowledgment. The power of a king might be more absolute than that of a “tyrant,” as Phidon of Argos is said to have made the royal prerogative greater than it was under his predecessors; yet he was still regarded as a king, for the difference between the two names depended upon title and origin, and not on the manner in which the power was exercised. The name “tyrant” was originally so far from denoting a person who abused his power, or treated his subjects with cruelty, that Pisistratus is praised for the moderation of his government. Afterwards, when “tyrants” themselves had become odious, the name also grew to be a word of reproach, just as rex did among the Romans. Among the early “tyrants” of Greece those most worthy of mention are: Clisthenes of Sicyon, grandfather of the Athenian Clisthenes, in whose family the government continued for a century from its establishment by Orthagoras, about B.C. 672; Cypselus of Corinth, who expelled the Bacchiadae, B.C. 656, and his son Periander, both remarkable for their cruelty; their dynasty lasted between seventy and eighty years; Procles of Epidaurus; Pantaleon of Pisa, who celebrated the thirty-fourth Olympiad, depriving the Eleans of the presidency; Theagenes of Megara, father-inlaw to Cylon the Athenian; and Pisistratus, whose sons were the last of the early “tyrants” on the Grecian continent. In Sicily, where “tyranny” most flourished, the principal were Phalaris of Agrigentum, who established his power in B.C. 568; Theron of Agrigentum; Gelon, already mentioned, who, in conjunction with Theron, defeated Hamilcar the Carthaginian, on the same day on which the battle of Salamis was fought; and Hieron, his brother: the last three celebrated by Pindar. The following also are worthy of notice: Polycrates of Samos, Lygdamis of Naxos, Histiaeus and Aristagoras of Miletus. Perhaps the last mentioned can hardly be classed among the Greek “tyrants,” as they were connected with the Persian monarchy.

The general characteristics of a “tyranny” were, that it was bound by no laws, and had no recognized limitation to its authority, however it might be restrained in practice by the good disposition of the “tyrant” himself, or by fear, or by the spirit of the age. It was commonly most odious to the wealthy and noble, whom the “tyrant” looked upon with jealousy as a check upon his power, and whom he often sought to get rid of by sending them into exile or putting them to death. The “tyrant” usually kept a body-guard of foreign mercenaries, by aid of whom he controlled the people at home; but he seldom ventured to make war, for fear of giving an opportunity to his subjects to revolt. The causes which led to the decline of “tyranny” among the Greeks were partly the degeneracy of the “tyrants” themselves, corrupted by power, indolence, flattery, and bad education; for even where the father set a good example, it was seldom followed by the son; partly the cruelties and excesses of particular men, which brought them all into disrepute; and partly the growing spirit of inquiry among the Greek people, who began to speculate upon political theories, and soon became discontented with a form of government which had nothing in theory, and little in practice, to recommend it. Few dynasties lasted beyond the third generation. Most of the tyrannies which flourished before the Persian War are said to have been overthrown by the exertions of Sparta, jealous, probably, of any innovation upon the old Doric constitution, especially of any tendency to ameliorate the condition of the Perioeci, and anxious to extend her own influence over the States of Greece by means of the benefits which she conferred. Upon the fall of “tyranny” the various republican forms of government were established, the Dorian States generally favouring oligarchy, the Ionian democracy. Of the “tyrants” of a later period, the most celebrated are the two Dionysii. The corruption of the Syracusans, their intestine discords, and the fear of the Carthaginian invaders, led to the appointment of Dionysius to the chief military command, with unlimited powers; by means of which he raised himself to the throne B.C. 406, and reigned for thirty-eight years, leaving his son to succeed him. The younger Dionysius, far inferior in every respect to his father, was expelled by Dion, afterwards regained the throne, and was again expelled by Timoleon, who restored liberty to the various States of Sicily.

See Plaes, Die Tyrannis in ihren beiden Perioden bei den alten Griechen (Bremen, 1852); Drumann, De Tyrannis Graecorum (Halle, 1812); Schömann, Griech. Alterth. i. pp. 169 foll.; Zeller in Berichte der Berl. Acad. (1885); and the articles oligarchia; timocratia.