Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:54:40.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The tyrants around Thoas and Damasenor’ (Plut. Q.G. 32.298c–d)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Robert J. Gorman  and
Vanessa B. Gorman
Robert J. Gorman
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Lincoln, rgorman1@unl.edu
Vanessa B. Gorman
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Lincoln, vgorman1@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At Quaestiones Graecae 32.298c–d, Plutarch raises the question, τίνες οἰ ειναται παρᾰ Μιλησίος, ‘Who were the Perpetual Sailors among the Milesians?’ he frames the circumstances of his answer using a genitive absolute clause: τν περ Θόαντα κα Δαμασήνορα τυράννων καταλυθέντων (‘when the tyrants around Thoas and Damasenor had been overthrown’). In the absence of any other mention of these men in the extent sources, these words—especially the appellation τυράνων—have caused concern among editors and commentators of Plutarch. In the Teubner edition of 1935 Titchener changes τυράνων to the accusative τυράννους, while Halliday in his Oxford commentary suggests that the word should be deleted as a gloss. Each of these suggested changes to the received text is motivated by the occurrence here of the common idiom οἵ πεί ⁺ Accus. nominis proprii. This expression is, from the time of Polybius on, frequently used by Greek historians to indicate succinctly a group or faction, especially one centred around an important personage. Furthermore, a rather odd periphrastic usage of this phrase has been identified by scholars of Greek grammar as common from at least the Roman period. In this usage, οἱ περί τινα I serves as the equivalent of the simple proper name. Thus τν περ Θόαντα κα Δαμασήνορα may be a periphrasis for Thoas and Damasenor alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , December 2000 , pp. 526 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

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 For example, Plut. Tim. 30.4 τν δ περ ⁅τόν⁆ Μάμερκον τν Κατάνης Ίκέτην (‘those around Mamerkos, the tyrant of Katane, and Hiketes’).

2 Kühner and Gerth 1.270; Schwyzer and Debrunner 2.417; LSJ s.v. περί C.I.2 (with accusative of persons): ‘later ol n. nva, periphr. for the person himself; cf. C.I.3.

3 On this common ellipsis, see Kühner and Gerth 1.269.

4 In fact, of examples of this form in Plutarch, the passage cited here is the only instance where the periphrastic interpretation appears to us the most likely.

5 For example, Polyb. 5.95.7 οἱ δ περἰ Λύκον κα Δημόδοκον τν τν Άχαιν ἱππάρχην συνέντες τήν έκ τς ᾜλιδος τν Αίτωλών ἔξοδον, έπισυναγαγόντες τοὺς Δυμαίους&hellip σύν δ τούτοις ἓχοντες τούς μισθοΦόρους ένέβαλον είς τήν Ήλείαν (‘Those around Lykos and Demodokos the Hipparch of the Achaians, learning of the expedition of the Aitolians from Elis, gathered the Dymaians… and, taking in addition the mercenaries, invaded Elis’). Polybius uses the οί περί Λύκον καί Δημόδοκον construction with great frequency in military contexts, where it usually refers non-periphrastically to a leader and his men. However, because the words ol nepl AVKOV Kal ATJUOSOKOV in this instance are associated with predicates appropriate to commanding officers—συνέντες, πισυναγαγαγόντες,, and ἒχοντες τούς μισθοΦόρους—they are commonly interpreted as periphrastic, meaning simply ‘Lykos and Demodokos’.

6 This has been a preferred rendering of the text since the very first printed translation of the Q.G., the Latin Problemata of Ioannes Petrus Lucensis (Venice, c. 1477): ‘damasenore ac thoante tyrannis exactis’.

7 The two exceptions are not true counter-examples. Both are cases of the ‘nominate Indeterminatiori of the grammar books (Schwyzer and Debrunner 2.23; Kühner and Gerth 1.589). The first occurs at Rom. 2.1, where Plutarch is reporting the competing traditions on the source of the name ‘Rome’: οἱ δέ Ρωμιν Λατίνων τύραννον. The context, set as it is in the legendary past, makes clear that the article is omitted with special point: ‘Some say Romis, a tyrant of the Latins’. Plutarch hereby indicates that little is known of Romis but his name. Compare οἱ δέ Ρωμιν Λατίνων τύραννον (‘Some say Romanos, a son of Odysseus and Circe’) which occurs a few lines previously. The indeterminate nature of the expression is certain. The second example comes from Per. 20.1, Plutarch's narration of the Athenian general's successful campaign in the Black Sea. Perikles, we are told, left ships and soldiers to the Sinopians to be used έπί Τιμησίλεων τύραννον. Again, indeterminatiori is the best interpretation; the name Timesileos appears to be a hapax in Greek literature and ‘against a certain tyrant Timesileos’ seems a most appropriate rendering of these words.

On the other hand, indetermination, the effect of Titchener's τυράννους, is not appropriate at Q.G 32.298c–d, since Plutarch uses the clause των περί Θόα καί Δαμασήνορα… καταλυθέτων to specify the temporal setting of his aition.

8 In contrast, constructions of the form οἱ περί Σικίννιον καί Βροτον δημαγωγοί (Cor. 13.1), where the substantive belonging with the definite article is expressed, are far more common, with over fifty occurrences. In all these instances (in which the substantive is used attributively) the textbook pattern seen here—article-prepositional phrase-substantive—is in fact found. Thus Plutarch's normal usage in this regard supports the τυράννων of the manu-scripts.

9 The most extensive study is that of Michel Dubuisson, ΟΙ ΑΜΦΙ ΤΙΝΑ, ΟΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΙΝΑ: revolution des sens et des emplois (Dissertation, Liège, 1977). Scepticism about the periphrasis was already expressed by A. Traina, ‘J. Humbert e la sintassi greca’, Atene e Roma NS 1 (1956), 201–2. These works constitute only an important first step in the reevaluation of οί περί ⁺ Accus. Our own investigations, based on the study of over a thousand examples of the construction, lead us to believe that there are many fewer cases of periphrasis in historical narrative than even Dubuisson will allow. Much further research must be done before the use of this expression and its historical development are confidently understood.

10 See the famous lines of Archilochos (Diehl 22).

11 For tyranny in general, see now Victor Parker, ‘Τύραννος: the semantics of a political concept from Archilochos to Aristotle', Hermes 126 (1998), 145–72; basic are still: A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956) and H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, 2 vols (München, 1967).

12 Ar. Pol. 5.1315b12–14: πλεΐστον έγένετο χρόνου ή περί Σικυνα τυραννίς ᾑ τν ᾽Ορθαγόρου παίδων κα αὐτοΰ Όρθαγόρυ ἒτη δ᾽ (“The tyranny at Sikyon—of the children of Orthagoras and Orthagoras himself—lasted the longest time. It endured for a hundred years’). For a discussion of the relevant evidence, see Fritz Schachermeyr, RE 18.2, 1430–2.

13 Thoas, Damasenor, and at least one other. It must be noted that the tyrant Thrasyboulos, mentioned as he is by Herodotos, cannot be a member of a series indicated by these words. It is the norm for the οἱ περί τινα construction that the name of the most prominent member of the group be given as the object of the preposition. Of course, των περί Θόαντα καί Δαμασήνορα τυράννων could refer to a succession of relatively minor tyrants before or after Thrasyboulos. In this case, the duration of this period of tyranny, including the rule of Thrasyboulos, will have been less than the eighteen years allotted by Politics 5.1315b34 to the tyranny περ ῾Ιέρωνα καί Γέλωνα περί Συρακούσας (the fourth longest—after the tyrannies of the Orthagorids, the Kypselids and the Peisistratids—known to the author of this passage).

14 The connection in partisan discourse of oligarchy and tyranny was common at Athens before the Thirty. For example, referring to the reactions of the Athenians to the Mutilation of the Herms and the Profanation of the Mysteries, Thucydides says (6.60.1) πάντα αύτοΐς έδόκει έπί ξυνμοσίᾳ λιγαρχικ καί τυραννικῇ πεπρχθαι (‘it seemed to them that everything had been done for an oligarchical and tyrannical conspiracy’). For more on this connection, see Roger Brock, ‘Athenian oligarchs: the numbers game’, JHS 109 (1989), 160–4.

15 Pelop. esp. 6 and 9; Comp. Pelop. et Marc. 1.6;Ages. 24.2; Degen. Soc. 109.576b, 586d, etc.

16 For example, Thuc. 1.18.1: πειδή δέ τε Άθθηναίων τύραννοι… κατελύθησαν (‘And after the Athenian tyrants… had been overthrown’); Plut. Per. 3.2, ὃς ξήλασε Πεισιστρατίδας καί κατέλυσε τήν τυραννίδα('[Kleisthenes] who drove out the Peisitratids and overthrew the tyranny’).

17 The Athenian law of Demophantos (410/9 B.C.) anathematized ‘whoever should overthrow the democracy at Athens or hold any office if the democracy be overthrown’ (άν τις δημοκρατίαν καταλύη τήν Ἀθήνηοιν, ἣ ρχήν τινα ἂρχῃ[Andoc. Myst. 96.8]); the expression is very common. With oligarchy the verb is rarer, but still well-attested, e.g. Arist. Pol. 2.1273b35: Σόλωνα δ᾽ ἔνιοι οἲονται νομοθέτην γενέσθαι σπουδαῖον τε γᾰρ καταλΰσαι λίαν ἂὖσαν (‘Some think that Solon was an excellent lawgiver, for he overthrew an oligarchy that was excessively absolute’); Plut. Per. 25.2: Περικλς τήν οὖσαν λιγαρχίαν ν (‘Perikles overthrew the oligarchy that existed in Samos’).

18 See V. B. Gorman, Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia (Ann Arbor, forthcoming), ch. 3.